Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 February.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL 
(By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL 
(By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL 
(By Order)

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Shareholdings

Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government-held shareholdings in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government's shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The Government will clearly take NAO's observations into account as they press ahead with the privatisation programme.

Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister give the House his opinion on the statement of the National Audit Office about the £63 million put into the company prior to privatisation? Does he agree that, in the Government's besotted efforts to achieve privatisation, business ethics are at stake? Normally, when one takes the assets of a company, one takes its liabilities. That no longer seems to be the fashion. Should we not revert to ethics?

Mr. Lamont: I certainly do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman implies. The capital injection into the company was a decision made as a result of negotiation and on the basis of professional advice. However, we shall he giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee very shortly and we shall reply to those points in detail.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Rolls-Royce shares closed at 126p, against an issue price of 170p? In the intervening period the price has fluctuated between 96p and 240p. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in those circumstances the conclusion of the National Audit Office, that it is now hard to say whether the share price was set at a level that maximised the proceeds from the sale, is not unreasonable?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I only wish that Opposition Members, who are so quick to say that issues are under-priced, would sometimes notice when shares fall to prices below the issue price.
As regards the points made by the National Audit Office, I cannot anticipate what will be in the evidence, but we shall be replying to the points in detail.

Mr. Millan: When may we expect a statement about the Government's intentions on another very important Government shareholding—the golden share in Britoil?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not on this question.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of employees at Rolls-Royce were delighted to buy shares in the company in which they work? In Derby, it is even rumoured that a few Socialists bought shares when the company was sold off. If there is any message to the Government arising from the sale of Rolls-Royce, should it not be, "Carry on the good work."?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that my hon. Friend's opinion is shared by workers at Rolls-Royce. I cannot comment on whether Socialists bought shares in Rolls-Royce, although perhaps that is what Paul Foot meant when he said:
I hope bloody Bryan Gould bought millions of shares.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Given that the Government have decided that there should be no specific requirement to deepen or widen share ownership in the Rolls-Royce privatisation, what considerations of the public interest led the Chancellor to disregard the views of the Government's advisers, Samuel Montagu and Co., and concede the £63 million debt write-off? Is it true that the Government were effectively blackmailed by the Rolls-Royce chairman's threat not to support privatisation if he did not get the extra money?

Mr. Lamont: As I have already said, in reaching a decision on the capital structure and the capital injection we took into account the views of our advisers and the company, and we shall be detailing why we did that in our reply to the Public Accounts Committee.

Privatisation

Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the state-owned commercial sector which has been transferred to the private sector since 1979.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Since 1979 we have privatised getting on for 40 per cent. of the state-owned sector of industry.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of the state as an employer in the commercial and industrial sectors of the economy has been wholly unprofitable for the state and for its employees? The long-term prospects and prosperity of those enterprises would be enhanced if they were returned to the private sector as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that privatisation benefits the company, its employees and the economy as a whole. The employees of the companies concerned see this very clearly, as is evidenced by the fact that they are very anxious to acquire shares in the company for which they work as soon as it is privatised, and the great majority of them hold on to them.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Chancellor confirm, or deny, that on 27 January, at a meeting with merchant bankers from the underwriting houses, Treasury Ministers said that public sector corporations were being sold and must be sold at
20 per cent. less than their real worth to attract investors"?
Did that take place? Was that good husbandry on behalf of taxpayers? Will water, electricity and other forms of public commercial assets be sold in the same way at bargain-basement prices?

Mr. Lawson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because it gives me the opportunity categorically to deny that absurd story. No such statement was made. It is not the Government's policy, and, as usual, The Observer got it wrong. I am surprised that Labour Members believe it.

Mr. Thurnham: Is not the success of the Government's privatisation policy evident in the way in which productivity has improved? In some cases profits have doubled or trebled, and in the case of the National Freight Corporation they have increased ninefold.

Mr. Lawson: Almost every company that has been privatised has done signally better since privatisation than it did before. Many chairmen of the companies have made

that point at their annual meetings. The National Freight Corporation, to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded, has been an outstanding success.

NHS Expenditure

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of recent representations, he will increase planned public expenditure for 1988–89 on (a) National Health Service provision and (b) education and training.

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to his published expenditure plans for (a) the National Health Service and (b) Government expenditure generally.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): The White Paper plans for next year already include increased provision for the Health Service, education and training, as part of the £4·6 billion increase in the total for programmes.

Mr. Boyes: The Government's attacks on the National Health Service and on the education service are nothing short of political vandalism. Is the Minister aware that in a recent poll 86 per cent. of the people questioned suggested that it would be better to give money to the National Health Service, even if that meant increasing taxation? If cash is available on Budget day, it should be given to improve the National Health Service and the education system, rather than to line the pockets of the Minister's friends in the City.

Mr. Major: The Government are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about the National Health Service. The public expenditure plans for next year and for the two subsequent years show an increase of over £1 billion for the Health Service. It is the most substantial cash increase over a period that the Health Service has ever received.

Mr. Grant: Does the Minister agree that, instead of fiddling around with this large sum of money, it would be better to spend some of it, not only on the Health Service, but on increasing rate support grant for local authorities such as ILEA, which will probably have to make 3,000 teachers redundant? My authority will have to make cuts amounting to £45 million this year. Would it not be better for him to use some of the available money to alleviate the suffering and poverty that the Government have caused?

Mr. Major: As to the Health Service, I reiterate the point that I made a moment ago: there will be substantial increases in programme expenditure next year amounting to £4½ billion. ILEA, for all the expenditure that it has lavished, has failed to provide a decent education service in London, and I shall be glad to see the end of it.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one subject on which Opposition Members are expert is spending other people's money? Does he also agree that throwing public money—taxpayers' money—at, for example, ILEA, with its poor academic record, would be a complete and utter waste of money, just as lavishing taxpayers' money on the National Health Service without cuts — [HON MEMBERS: "Cuts?"] — without improvements in efficiency would be a derogation of the Government's duty?

Mr. Major: The Government are certainly keen to see increased efficiency in the National Health Service, and


the cost-improvement programmes have provided that to a certain extent. We hope to see more efficiency in the future.
ILEA is a uniquely high-spending authority. Moreover, I doubt whether it gives value for money. It employs two and a half times as many administrators per pupil as the average; twice as many non-teaching staff per pupil as the average; and its spending on the youth service is two and a half times that of even the most generous inner-city partnership. Clearly, it spends far more than it ought, and in the wrong way.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have noted that in real terms the Government have spent a lot more on the National Health Service, but, all the same, many of us believe that the problems of the NHS are much more complex and cannot be solved just by throwing more taxpayers' money at it? A radical review of the whole service 40 years on would be better than spending extra money willy-nilly.

Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and hope that we shall have such a radical review. I take my hon. Friend's point about the increase over retail prices. The increase in expenditure is well over 30 per cent. since 1979, which far outstrips that provided by any previous Government.

Mr. Beith: Does the Chief Secretary not recognise that, in real terms, taking the level of price increases in the economy as a whole, the increase for the Health Service this year is only 1·2 per cent., that it is likely to be less than that when the generally higher costs of the Health Service are taken into account, and that it will be nothing at all if the health authorities are expected to fund any part of the nurses' pay review? Why does he not respond to the massive public concern on that matter?

Mr. Major: I take the hon. Gentleman's underlying point that "real terms" can be defined in more than one way. We are both aware of that. However, in terms of the normal definition of "real terms", with the income-generation schemes and the cost-improvement schemes, the National Health Service will receive a real terms increase of about 3 per cent. next year.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we will, as usual, consider that matter when we have the report of the Nurses Pay Review Body, and we shall then decide whether we can accept it. Other matters will follow from there.

Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's expenditure plans show that spending on social security, health and education alone account for 60 per cent. of total Government expenditure—the highest proportion ever? Does he agree that those areas of massive public expenditure show rises even after the application of the overall GDP deflator?

Mr. Major: The figures may be even larger than my hon. Friend suggests, but his underlying premise is entirely correct.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Chief Secretary not find it surprising that no one — the British Medical Association, the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales or the Royal College of Nursing — agrees with him that the Health Service is properly funded? Given that he has had to concede that he has a Contingency Fund of £3·5 billion, will he now

allay the fears of health authorities throughout the country which are faced with having to budget for cuts and closures? Will he state today that he can and will fully fund the nurses' and health workers' pay settlements?

Mr. Major: We have not — [Interruption] If hon. Gentleman— —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has been asked a question.

Mr. Major: The provision for the National Health Service for next year has been substantially increased. Those who question the size of the increase simply have not taken into account the enormously increased provisions that have been made. It would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman would concern himself with reality rather than with fiction.

Cider

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he anticipates will be the yield from taxation on cider in the year 1987–88.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): About £55 million excluding VAT.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that since the tax heights of 1984 to 1985 tax revenue has failed to come up to expectation? Since then more than 500 jobs in the cider industry have been lost in Hereford alone and sales are stagnant across the industry despite massively increased promotional efforts. Will my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind in formulating his Budget proposals?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but he is fully aware of the views and the circumstances of the cider makers and will take them into account when he makes his Budget decisions.

Forestry

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received over the present taxation status of forestry development.

Mr. Norman Lamont: As is customary at this time of the year, my right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on a wide range of subjects.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for such a full and helpful answer. Does he accept that there has been widespread criticism of that relief from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and many others? It is rumoured that Prince Charles is to make a speech in the other place that will be critical of that relief— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not to be called in aid in this place.

Mr. Bennett: Many others have argued strongly that we should not destroy the natural environment of Britain by the indiscriminate planting of trees. If the Government are not prepared to take away that tax relief and use the money more usefully in the Health Service, will they consider using it for the planting of hedgerows, which would be much more useful environmentally?

Mr. Lamont: The points that the hon. Gentleman has made have been among the representations that we have


received. However, the encouragement of forestry is extremely important to the rural economy and it has been Government policy for many years.

Mr. Chapman: I commend the Government for encouraging tree-planting schemes, not least because I am president of the Arboricultural Association. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not the tax regime that needs changing to promote forestry development? It is necessary to ensure that trees are planted in the right places, and not in environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Lamont: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. There has been some recent criticism along those lines.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that the tax regime on trees has not led to any significant increase in planting? Instead, it has provided a tax haven for pop stars and film stars. Does the Minister accept that he has allowed the taxpayer to be ripped off?

Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot accept that there has been no increase in planting. Indeed, the environmental concern is that there has been too much planting of conifers.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Burt: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Major: Manufacturing investment is projected to increase by 11 per cent. in real terms in 1988, according to the Department of Trade and Industry's latest investment intentions survey.

Mr. Burt: Those figures are just the tonic for those concerned about the growth of manufacturing industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the significant increase in industrial productivity since 1981 means that investors should hold their nerve and that their confidence should remain high? Confidence is threatened only by the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Since 1979 manufacturing productivity growth has continued at a substantial level, and for the past year at a rate of 6½ per cent.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's quarterly survey from the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry, which represents by far the largest part of industry in the Greater Manchester area? Will he note that expected manufacturing investments are less than they were previously? They all seem to want reductions in interest rates to reverse that trend. As the report was published only after the increase in interest rates, what does the Minister intend to do to restore the expectation of manufacturing investment?

Mr. Major: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the survey is as pessimistic as he painted it. It paints an optimistic picture, and rightly so. Manufacturing investment is growing strongly. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the CBI's January quarterly trend survey showed that investment intentions still remain strong. Manufacturing investment is doing exceedingly well at present, and I share the right hon. Gentleman's wish that it should continue to do so.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ford pay dispute is unfortunate because it inhibits investment and is a clear sign of overheating in the economy?

Mr. Major: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it would be unwise to read overheating into every indicator. Improvements on the supply side since 1979 mean that firms can operate at a much higher rate of capacity utilisation than before, and my hon. Friend's concern may be a little overdone. In any event, if overheating were to appear, there is no doubt that the Government would not hesitate to take action against inflationary pressures.

Mr. Holland: When will the Chief Secretary realise that he cannot fool all the people all the time on manufacturing investment? The reality is that, in real terms 1980 prices, manufacturing investment now is 10 per cent. below what it was in 1979. Even if the CBI forecast of an 8 per cent. increase this year were achieved, the 1979 level would still not be reached, and this is at a time when the world economy is slowing down. When will the right hon. Gentleman pursue policies which, in the long term, will ensure that savings go into manufacturing investment so that we can rebuild the competitive economy?

Mr. Major: The end product of investment is productivity and profitability, and the quality of investment, as well as its quantum, are extremely important, and those have improved. The evidence of higher profitability and better productivity suggests that investment has been running at a high level and that it has been quality investment.

Business Starts

Mr. Key: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much business starts have exceeded stops between 1979 and 1986.

Mr. Brooke: Over the seven years from January 1980 to December 1986 the net increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT averaged 500 a week.

Mr. Key: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on creating the economic framework that has led to the successful figures that he has announced, and will he join me in congratulating those who create the wealth —mostly the self-employed, small business men and the enterprise agencies — on achieving that magnificent figure?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's enthusiasm. Since 1979 the number of self-employed is estimated to have increased by more than a third to 2·7 million up to the end of 1986. Of those companies registered for VAT, a majority have a turnover of less than £250,000 and constitute 20 per cent. of the nation's turnover, and enterprise agencies now number 350. I agree with my hon. Friend on the contribution that all three have made to the creation of jobs.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, that 500 extra businesses per week register for VAT, hide the real fact that there were more than 100,000 bankruptcies and insolvencies in the business sector between 1979 and 1986 — the highest record at any time in Britain's history? That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) was


able to point out that manufacturing investment is lower now than it was in 1979 when that lot on the Conservative Benches came into power.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct in thinking that I was quoting a net figure. There is always an element of risk in setting up any business, but that is what enterprise is all about. The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to hear that bankruptcies last year were falling.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 6,000 new firms come on to the market in the north-east of England every year and that about 10,000 people are self-employed on Teesside alone? Is that not convincing proof that the Government's policies in the north-east of England are working just as well as, if not better than, they are in other parts?

Mr. Brooke: I salute my hon. Friend for his constant championing of firms in the north-east.

Tax Relief

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average income tax relief has been received by a taxpayer earning £50,000 each year since 1979 at 1987 prices.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 14 January 1988 at colunm 390 in the Official Report.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not think that I have a direct interest in this question. However, how can the Minister possibly justify the giving of tax handouts of well over £10,000 a year to the richest 1 per cent. of people in the country at a time when the National Health Service, its patients and staff, are suffering the effect of a financial squeeze? Why should hospital patients in my constituency face the closure of their hospitals to subsidise the very rich?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that cutting rates is quite compatible with increasing revenue. As all my hon. Friends behind me know, the top 5 per cent. of income groups now pay a larger proportion of income tax than they did before the Government's tax cuts. It could be said that as a result of those tax cuts there has been more, not less, money for the National Health Service.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does not the deplorable term "tax handout" imply that the whole of an individual's income belongs in the first place to the state, and that it is at the discretion of the state that he is allowed to enjoy some of it?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Ms. Armstrong: I wonder whether the Minister will give us an assurance that his priority this year will be to ensure that those who have done well from his economy will be enabled to support the Health Service, and not to profit personally in the way that he has described them as being able to do in the past six years?

Mr. Lamont: The purpose of my right hon. Friend's Budgets in the past has certainly been to produce policies that benefit all the people in the country, and the result of our tax cutting has been that the take-home pay, or

disposable income, of a person on average earnings has increased by more than 20 per cent. That is how the policies of this Government have been in the interests of all the people.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas the Labour Government attempted to squeeze until the pips squeaked and collected only about £800 million from the higher rates of tax, this Government, by increasing growth in the economy with the consequent increase in incomes, now collect some £3,800 million from the higher rates of tax? Does that not augur well for a Budget in which tax cuts among the higher rates might be considered?

Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. However, I entirely agree with his point about the results of cuts in the top rates hitherto. The top 5 per cent. were previously paying some 24 per cent. of income tax revenues. That has now increased to nearly 30 per cent., amply illustrating my hon. Friend's point.

Dr. Marek: Does the Financial Secretary deny that those earning £50,000 a year or more have been gaining £10,000 a year under his regime? Does he deny that anyone earning £450 a week or less is now paying more tax—both in real, cash terms and as a proportion of income—than in 1978–79?
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that now produces a disincentive effect, with the top rate at 60 per cent., and that there is therefore a case for cutting it? Or does he believe that the rich are due for yet another handout? If he believes the former, what is his hard evidence, as opposed to hearsay? If he believes the latter, will he simply admit it?

Mr. Lamont: As I said, I shall not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. The only point that I was making about the cuts in higher rates was that, in my opinion, they have been in the overwhelming interest of the country, and the revenue figures show that. The figures also illustrate that those on half average earnings have done a great deal better under this Government than they did under the Labour Government.

Productivity

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.

Mr. Brooke: From 1980 to the third quarter of 1987 output per head in the whole economy has grown at an average rate of 2¾ per cent. per year, similar to that of Japan, and faster than all other major industrialised countries.

Mr. Patnick: How does the figure that my right hon. Friend has just announced compare with figures in the 1970s?

Mr. Brooke: Productivity growth in the whole economy has averaged about 2 per cent. per annum since the cyclical peak of 1979. That is nearly twice as fast as the average annual growth between 1973 and 1979, when, as I recollect, another party was in power.

Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very low productivity which used to characterise our economy and which got to the heart of our national economic ills has now been replaced by increasing and increased productivity, which is why we shall compete so effectively and why we are the envy of our Western industrialised competitors?

Mr. Brooke: I totally concur with my hon. Friend's question. It is significant that United Kingdom manufacturing output per head has increased since 1979 at six times the rate it increased between 1973 and 1979.

Mr. McFall: Given the issue of investment, will the Chancellor reflect on exports and imports? Is the Chancellor proud of the fact that since 1979 manufactured imports have risen twice as fast as exports? Why has the Prime Minister broken the pledge she made in 1979 that the Tories would create conditions for our factories and workshops that would produce manufactured goods, so that the customers of the world would be scrambling over each other to buy them? Is it by design, or by sheer incompetence on the part of the Government, that such a disastrous imbalance in manufactured goods has been achieved?

Mr. Brooke: The question that I was asked related to productivity rather than to investment and exports, but manufacturing output and productivity have been increasing even more rapidly than the rest of the economy.

Mr. Barry Jones: How can the Minister concur so boastfully when, as recently as 1986, Britain imported cars, textiles and steel to the value of £8 billion? Is that not a ruinous rate of imports? What will he do about that?

Mr. Brooke: As I remarked a moment ago, the question related to productivity rather to than imports.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in productivity has resulted in a significant increase in profitability and that the taxes from profits pouring into the Treasury will give the Chancellor the opportunity in the Budget to do what no Chancellor has been able to do in the past 50 years—to balance the budget, reduce taxation and increase public expenditure by the £4·6 billion laid down in the White Paper on public expenditure?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but the scenario my hon. Friend describes sounds attractive.

Mr. John Smith: If the Minister is correct in obtaining some satisfaction from productivity figures, why did Britain have a surplus in the balance of trade on manufactured goods of £5 million in 1979 and a deficit last year of £8 billion, which is deteriorating? What is the point of so-called increases in productivity if we cannot compete successfully with our competitors? What will the Government do about the balance of payments?

Mr. Brooke: The economy is competing successfully and we have maintained our share of manufactured exports in world trade in a manner unknown in recent generations.

Tax Changes

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the distributional effects of the changes in direct and indirect taxation have been since 1979.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The effect has been that real take-home pay has increased by at least 18 per cent. at all multiples of average earnings.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that most commentators now take the view that the burden of increased taxation since 1979 has fallen more heavily on the lower paid, part-time workers? Is he aware that if he takes the opportunity coming to him in the next few weeks to indulge in across-the-board cuts that will simply mean that the relative advantage will be given to those on higher levels of income? When will he take steps to redress the balance?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my answer, which was that all income groups have enjoyed increases in take-home pay of at least 18½ per cent. When one considers the proportion of tax and national insurance at all levels of income and compares that with the regime that we inherited in 1979, if that had been adjusted only for inflation, it will be seen that everybody is paying substantially less tax and national insurance at all levels of income.

Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Social and Liberal Democrats are really concerned to help the lower paid they would be better advised to look beyond ideas such as putting VAT on children's clothes, and look instead to the example set by the Labour Government in New Zealand, where they are abolishing all higher rates of income tax, thus giving a real boost to productivity and growth, and to everybody's income?

Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am sure that he will understand if we are extremely careful in responding when we are so near to the Budget.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister rule out now the destruction of jobs that will take place if VAT is put on newspapers?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot anticipate the Budget.

Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he now anticipates a public sector surplus rather than a public sector borrowing requirement in 1987–88.

Mr. Lawson: I shall be publishing a new forecast in the Budget in the usual way.

Mr. Smith: Is it not clear that there is now every prospect of a balanced Budget, or a public sector lending requirement surplus? Will this not be the best performance since the early 1950s, with the exception of the year 1969–70? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend) said, does that not offer the prospect of a tax-cutting, expenditure-rising, balanced Budget on 15 March?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will understand that there is no way in which I can anticipate my Budget today, but I can tell him and the House that public finances at present are fundamentally sounder than they have been at any time since the war, and I intend to keep them that way.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Chancellor remember that the last Chancellor to anticipate a public sector borrowing


surplus was Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins? Does the Chancellor expect that his career will follow the same glittering progress?

Mr. Lawson: I have never before been compared to the noble Lord Jenkins. [Interruption.] I have long since given up drinking claret. He was, of course, Chancellor of the Exchequer for only a relatively short time.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my right hon. Friend give top priority to raising the tax thresholds in his forthcoming Budget, to help restore incentives to work and help the lower paid generally?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. He has been waging a campaign for a long time pointing out the importance of reductions in income tax to create incentives and to help the lower paid, and indeed all those in the economy, to make the economy stronger. I think he will agree that the economy is now very much stronger, and one of the reasons for that, although not by any means the only one, is that we have been pursuing a policy of reducing levels of income tax.

Mr. John Smith: If Britain's public finances are as sound as the Chancellor says, why are the Government not spending the money where it is desperately needed, in the National Health Service? Or does the Chancellor now tell us that enough is being spent on the Health Service? Will he give us a direct answer?

Mr. Lawson: I shall say two things to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in answer to an earlier question, we have provided in this most recent public expenditure White Paper for the biggest ever increases in spending on the National Health Service in the next three years. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, health provision is currently under review by the Government. Finally, I make it clear to him that anybody who knows anything about provision of health care in the National Health Service in this country knows that the problems—and there are problems—go far beyond the simple question of funding.

Personal Disposable Income

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real personal disposable income since 1983.

Mr. Lawson: Real personal disposable income has grown by 13 per cent. since 1983.

Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent figure shows that policies that promote enterprise, competition and fiscal prudence certainly deliver the goods?

Mr. Lawson: They do, and they will continue to do so.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Chancellor aware that figures put forward by the Family Studies Institute suggest that, under this Chancellor, the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer? Should we not have a strategy against poverty, beginning with the scrapping of the notorious social fund, which the Government are determined to introduce in April?

Mr. Lawson: The studies to which the hon. Gentleman referred were based on incorrect data and we are writing

to the institute to point that out. The truth of the matter is that, at all income levels, the vast majority of the people of this country have seen a substantial increase in their living standards since the Government came to office.

Overseas Assets

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net assets overseas.

Mr. Major: At the end of 1986 the United Kingdom's net assets overseas were estimated at £114 billion.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is a huge increase in recent years? Does he agree that the net income from those assets is highly beneficial to our economy? Does not all this underline the success of the previous Chancellor's decision eight years ago to abolish exchange controls?

Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right in both his propositions. The net income in the first three quarters of the present year amounted to £5·4 billion, and the abolition of exchange controls was wholly welcome and beneficial.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Miss Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.

Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to put pressure on his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to answer the criticisms of the Comptroller and Auditor General about the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance factories, one of which is in my constituency? The Minister refused to answer those criticisms, which point out that that privatisation cost this country tens of millions of pounds, that dividends were waived to make the company more attractive and that the delay in the transfer of pension rights and redundancy pay made this whole operation exceedingly expensive. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, before further privatisation takes place, some answers should be given to the complaints of the Auditor General?

Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Lady misses the important point. The important point is that there were difficulties in the armaments procurement industry. That industry will do much better under privatisation than it ever would under state control.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend seen the quite astonishing economic progress report, published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which shows that the average British family is having to spend £11 per week more for food, simply because of the price support for the CAP? Does he agree that in no circumstances should the Government agree to extra resources going to the EEC as long as the Common Market is spending £233 million per week on dumping and destroying food and £50 million per week on financing fraud?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Brussels at the European Council dealing with some of those very difficult issues. I know that she goes with the best wishes and strong support of the vast majority of the British people.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Lord President aware of the growing concern, both in this country and among our allies, over the Government's deplorable decision not to follow the Stalker-Sampson report with appropriate prosecutions? Does he realise that it is now essential that the affair — the shoot-to-kill RUC conspiracy and Special Branch involvement—be cleared up by a judicial inquiry? Are the Government prepared to set up such an inquiry?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government are not prepared to set up a judicial inquiry. The matter has been the subject of a very thorough and detailed investigation, at the end of which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland reached his decision. A further inquiry would be unnecessary and inappropriate.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Lord President not realise the damage that that answer does both to our reputation abroad and to the prospects of lasting peace in Northern Ireland? How can the Government hope to establish the rule of law in Northern Ireland if they manipulate the law themselves? How can they expect to end the domination, dominance and role of the IRA if they are prepared to allow criminal conspiracy to go ahead without taking appropriate action?

Mr. Wakeham: Those are disgraceful remarks. Surely if any damage is done, it is by allegations that the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland did not act independently and properly in accordance with his duties.

Mr. Hattersley: The Lord President either deludes himself or seeks to deceive others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not deceive each other in this Chamber.

Mr. Hattersley: I withdraw that at once. The Lord President either deceives himself or seeks to delude others. The Attorney-General made it absolutely clear that there was a case to answer but that he chose not to answer it. The Lord President has to defend that, and not some other charge.

Mr. Wakeham: The Attorney-General made a clear statement in the House and indicated the reasons why, in the national interest, he had made his decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement in the House on the disciplinary matters and matters of control of the RUC that arise from that decision. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When the Prime Minister in Brussels talks to the Taoiseach, with whom she got on very well on an earlier occasion, will she tell him that the British people are prepared to accept the interference of the Irish Republic in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom only to the extent that he is prepared to accept British interference in the affairs of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not privy to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say to the Taoiseach in

Brussels, but I know that she will seek to deal with the matter in the best way possible, that is, to recognise that the Anglo-Irish accord is something that we believe to be important, and hope to get over some of the difficulties.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Leader of the House confirm that since 1969 166 people who were not members of paramilitary organisations and were not involved in violence have been killed by the security forces in Northern Ireland? Will he further confirm that in those 166 cases there have been three convictions? What plans have the Government to ensure that the law will apply in Northern Ireland without fear or favour equally to every person?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave. He may well be right. I think that in anybody who atempts to deal with the difficult issues in Northern Ireland a recognition of some of the people who are the victims of terrorism would be appropriate.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the many remarkable achievements of Comic Relief was the quality of the films used to educate the British public about events and about the handicapped at home and abroad? Will he therefore consult his right hon. Friends about the possibility of the BBC and ITV making available— —

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Rowe: —to Departments these remarkable films for the use of voluntary organisations?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, I was appearing on a rival channel while that was going on. I shall certainly pass the remarks of my hon. Friend to the appropriate quarters.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: In the light of the Appeal Court decision yesterday, will the Lord President of the Council acknowledge that the Government have brought confidence in the public security services in this country into disrepute by identifying the Conservative Government and party interest with the national and public interest? In the light of the judges' comments yesterday, would it not now be appropriate to set up a Committee of the House, composed of senior Privy Councillors, to help restore confidence in the objectivity of determining what is the national security interest?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that by his question the hon. Gentleman meant to impugn the integrity of the judges who dealt with the case. The case remains before the courts, and I have no intention of commenting. The Government remain determined to uphold the principle of confidentiality, without which the security services could not function effectively to protect our freedom.

Mr. Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, for solely demographic reasons, the number of 18-yearolds available to enter the nursing profession is likely to decline dramatically. Is it, therefore, not regrettable that so few health authorities encourage, retrain and consider


the special needs of young nurses who have young families and who wish to re-enter the profession after having been married?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure that all those who have responsibilies for the matter will take it on board.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: Is the Lord President of the Council aware of a letter sent to hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-west by Dr. Thistlethwaite and other paediatricians in the north-west region about cutbacks and closures at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester? Does he realise that those paediatricians warn of the dire consequences if those closures and reductions in service take place, and that they may result in the deaths of babies? Will he recognise that there is a crisis in the Health Service and that the solution lies in the Government's hands? When will they adopt it?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not recognise the analysis that the hon. Gentleman gave. The Health Service is receiving this year the greatest increase in income it has every received. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister left me a note for the hon. Gentleman when she went away. She told me that I was to remind him that capital expenditure in his district increased by £16·5 million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did ask for figures.

Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about the organised violence—not merely the mindless hooliganism — at sporting events recently, including that at Bingley Hall in my constituency at the world title fight, and that reported today as having occurred in the Greater Manchester area? Will the Government consider taking improved powers to apprehend these thugs before they create havoc such as they created at those events?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern, and I believe that the House would wish to congratulate the police on their excellent work. The measures taken by the Government, the football authorities, the clubs and others have helped to tackle the menace of football hooliganism. There is still some way to go, and the disgraceful scenes on Sunday were deeply disturbing. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep his suggestions—and others— in mind as possible ways of tackling the problem.

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McCartney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rachmanism is flourishing in Lambeth under a company called Toddingtons Ltd., in which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is the majority shareholder? This week it is evicting a Mr. Fisher, who has lived there with his sick mother for 14 years and who is unemployed. He is being evicted on the grounds that his mother has had to go into hospital.
Is it not outrageous that Rachmanism still abounds? Does the Leader of the House agree with the Labour party policy that people in the private sector should have the same right to buy from absentee landlords?

Mr. Wakeham: I am somewhat sceptical about what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows perfectly well that if he has anything of that sort to say he should deliver it to the police and not try to make party capital out of it. The fact of the matter is that no hon. Member would want anything to do with Rachmanism or anything like it. The Housing Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend and at present before Parliament will do a great deal more to improve the housing conditions of millions of people in this country than anything done by the Opposition.

Mr. Adley: Returning to things that are the responsibility of the Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the Prime Minister's visit to the Channel tunnel, I have written to her asking whether she could obtain, for the benefit of the House, precise information as to the levels of investment and the criteria for that investment as between the French Government and SNCF on the one hand and the British Government and British Rail on the other? Will my right hon. Friend assist me and the House to obtain that information so that we may assess the relative actions of the two Governments in providing the necessary public infrastructure to maximise the advantage of the tunnel?

Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly refer that matter to my right hon. Friend. I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants here and now.

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Lord President turn his mind again to the question of Northern Ireland? Is there not a pervasive and growing stench about the refusal of the Attorney-General to engage in prosecutions in connection with the killing of those people, who were unarmed, especially the young man in the hay shed? Does he not realise that if there is not a judicial inquiry under the 1921 Act this will grow and grow? It will not go away, and it will sour relations with the Republic.

Mr. Wakeham: The first thing that the hon. Gentleman must get absolutely straight is that it was not the decision of the Attorney-General; it was the decision of the DPP not to prosecute.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.
Debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the EC document relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY — Remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Debate on a Government motion on the abolition of the Inner London education authority.
Supplemental timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill.
Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87, (No. 4) 1983–84 and (No. 4) 1984–85.
THURSDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock motions relating to Social Fund regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order.
FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Steel Bill.
[Debate on Monday 15 February
Relevant European Community Document:


4165/88
Agricultural Land: Set aside and extensification


Relevant MAFF Documents:


Unnumbered
Explanatory Memorandum dated 27 January 1988



Agricultural Land: Set aside and extensification



Addendum dated 12 February 1988


Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-xiii (1987–88) para 1.
Debate on Thursday 18 February 1988
Social Fund (Application for Review) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 34).
Social Fund (Recovery by Deductions from Benefits) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 35).
Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 36)].

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
In view of his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when does the Leader of the House intend to find time to debate the Stalker-Sampson report, which raises fundamental issues affecting the rule of law? Will he give an undertaking that if any prosecutions following that report are to be announced, they will be announced in this House and not in some hole-and-corner manner?
While we welcome the extra time given to debate the Inner London education authority, surely the Leader of

the House realises that what is needed is a new and separate Bill—that is, if he cannot persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to abandon this vandalistic measure altogether.
Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that Thursday's debate on the rate-capping orders does not clash with the Committee stage of the poll tax Bill, because even the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot be in two places at once?
When will the House have the opportunity to debate the new packaging around the DTI, particularly as a debate on that is already scheduled for the House of Lords?
Can the Leader of the House tell us when there is likely to be a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, and also when there is likely to be a debate, in Government time, on the arts?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. First, on the Stalker-Sampson report, I have already said to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement to the House shortly. I believe that any other questions of debate and so on can be left until after that statement has been made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on ILEA next week. He suggested that it would be easier to proceed my means of a new Bill. I do not agree. Indeed, in last week's debate he suggested that the amendments to the current Bill would be out of order. If that is true, the hon. Gentleman will be proved right, but I believe that the amendments will be in order. I shall be arranging for the supplemental timetable motion to be tabled this afternoon. In addition to the day's debate that I have announced for next week, provision will be made for a further day on Report stage of the Education Reform Bill as well as additional time in the Standing Committee.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the debate on the rate limitation order and wondered whether the Committee should sit while that debate took place on the Floor of the House. That matter can be discussed through the usual channels.
I recognise the need for a debate on DTI matters in view of the number of initiatives that my right hon. Friend has taken. I shall certainly refer the matter to him, but I cannot promise a debate immediately.
There will be a debate fairly soon on public expenditure, but we are awaiting the report of the Select Committee.
I recognise that a debate on the arts is an extremely important matter and it is something I have in mind for the not too distant future.

Sir Bernard Braine: With reference to what is happening in Austria and the responsibility, in one aspect, of the British Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that the six British commandos, captured off Greece in 1944, were done to death under Hitler's infamous commando order? Everyone in the German Army at that time, whether their name was Waldheim or anything else, knew about that commando order. Indeed, two years previously six British Royal Marines—the Cockleshell heroes—were done to death under that order. In that case, however, there was a reckoning after the war and a war crimes trial. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the action of those who destroyed the evidence


in the case of the commandos captured off Greece will be questioned and that there will be a thorough inquiry? Can the appropriate Minister make a statement to the House next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my right hon. Friend's concern about these matters and I know that it is shared in many parts of the House. The British Government take seriously all allegations, especially when British service men are involved. We shall look at all the new information, but I cannot promise an early statement on the matter.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Leader of the House seen the following early-day motions:
No. 653:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve ( Part-time) (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 8), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
No. 654:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc.) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 9), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
No. 655:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 (S.R. (N.I.), 1988, No. 10), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
No. 656:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints) (Informal Resolution) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 11), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
The Leader of the House will note that they are in the form of prayers set down by myself and my hon. Friends relating to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the right hon. Gentleman provides time for those prayers to be debated, it will enable us to discuss the Stalker-Sampson inquiry in the light of the Attorney-General's statement and the forthcoming statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I hope that he will respond positively to that suggestion.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that might be a way out, but I think that I should best discuss it through the usual channels.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend again consider early-day motion 372:
[That this House believes that honourable and Right honourable Members should keep their speeches to 10 minutes or less when requested by Mr. Speaker in order to give more backbench Members of all parties an opportunity to speak, excepting only the four principal speakers in each debate.]
It is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and concerns the limitation of speeches in the House. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will restore the experiment that was extremely successful

in the previous Parliament. In view of the decision that was made this week about televising our proceedings, is it not even more important that there should be a better chance for hon. Members other than Front Bench spokesmen, Privy Councillors and wind-bags?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not go down that road, but I recognise that there is a demand for such a change. There are a number of other procedural matters that I would like to bring before the House. I am having discussions through the usual channels and with other interested parties, and I hope to make progress as soon as possible.

Mr. Giles Radice: Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave his right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about the Austrian question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Austria's many friends are deeply disturbed by the reports of the international historians' commission to the effect that, despite President Waldheim's denials, he was well aware of atrocities in the Balkans and in Greece? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have either an early statement or a debate about this matter — particularly about the report in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph that President Waldheim was aware of the torture and execution of six commandos in Salonica in Greece?

Mr. Wakeham: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and of his concern. As I understand it, the international commission of historians has delivered its report to the Austrian Government and the Austrian Government are now considering its report. The British Government will be prepared to consider any reports arising from that inquiry.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my long-standing interest in this matter. I can only reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) have said. The fate of those commandos is of genuine national interest. What happened so long ago is of interest to us as a nation and as a European power. The full truth must be revealed. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ask his colleagues what happened to those files in 1978 that were deliberately destroyed?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly ensure that the contributions of my hon. Friend and of other right hon. and hon. Members are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early next week on Britoil and the Government's intentions with regard to the use of the golden share? There have been discussions between the Treasury and BP on the one hand and the Treasury and Britoil on the other, but the House has not been informed of the line that the Government have taken in those discussions. In Scotland there is a keen interest in the question whether the Government are genuinely trying to protect Scottish interests in this very important matter or whether they are simply engaged in a sell-out to BP.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he answered a private notice question on this subject at the beginning of the month. However, I shall refer the right


hon. Gentleman's points to him and, if he feels that it is necessary to make a further statement, I am sure that he will.

Mr. James Hill: As we have witnessed the signing of the INF agreement and passed the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill to make arrangements for observers and inspectors, and as there is a need to harmonise all the European forces' weaponry, may we have a debate including a discussion of conventional weapons and chemical weapons reductions and, most important of all, the future of the Western European Union as the European pillar of NATO?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is a debate today.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to say that, with a little ingenuity—of course, this is a matter not for me, but for you, Mr. Speaker—my hon. Friend might well find that some of his points are relevant to today's debate.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between "shortly" and "as soon as possible", which was how he described last week the timescale in which we might expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Has he any concept of how the people of Northern Ireland feel after three weeks in which the Secretary of State has warned us of a renewed terrorist assault and told us about the new brigade organisation to defend the border and how they feel about the details of the Stalker affair? Can the Leader of the House imagine how the people of Northern Ireland feel about the fact that foreign politicians have been able informally and formally, at Prime Minister level, to discuss matters affecting their daily lives? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how they feel about their elected representatives being ignored day after day? Two years ago I asked his predecessor whether the elected representatives of Northern Ireland were redundant. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are redundant?

Mr. Wakeham: How many times has the hon. Gentleman asked to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but been refused? The hon. Gentleman asked what was the difference between "shortly" and "as soon as possible". "As soon as possible" cannot be shortened, but "shortly" could be shortened.
As to the substantial and serious matter that the hon. Gentleman raised— I do not treat these matters other than seriously—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that he will make a statement. I recognise the concern that the statement should be made as soon as possible. I am sure that the House will recognise that there are serious and weighty matters to be considered. Hon. Members would not want my right hon. Friend to make a statement without having considered all those matters extremely carefully.

Mr. Michael Latham: As to next week's debate on the revised guillotine motion on the Education Reform Bill, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that revised motion, and any subsequent motions

relating to the Report stage, leave plenty of time for proper discussion of the role of universities, given the concern about the present drafting of the Bill?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. I said during my speech on the timetable motion that the purpose of introducing it was to ensure that all parts of the Bill were properly discussed. As the part of the Bill dealing with universities comes at the end of it, I had that in mind as much as any other matter.

Mr. Frank Cook: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 499.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of praying days allowed for it will be exhausted by next Friday? Will he confirm that there is no provision for it in next week's business anyway? When does he intend to make provision for it, and will he assure the House that that provision will be made on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern of a number of hon. Members about this matter. A Labour Member raised this matter with me last week. I said that any debate on the subject would have to be agreed through the usual channels. There is a lot of business that we need to get through, but we shall do our best to find time if that is the general wish.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Following the clear decision of the House on Tuesday regarding an experiment in the televised broadcasting of our proceedings, will my right hon. Friend say what he thinks the next step in this process will be and reaffirm, as he said with such alacrity after the debate, that the Government intend to introduce measures and proposals as soon as is reasonably possible?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I said in my speech earlier this week. The first step is to set up a Select Committee to look into the matters required of it by the House. Discussions are taking place to work out the best way forward.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the recent activities of the Economic League, which has been spying on innocent British citizens? Will he note that more than 100 hon. Members have signed my early-day motion on that subject? Will he find time for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet to discuss the needs of the Health Service in Scotland? I am sorry to raise two separate issues, but they are both important, and I hope that that is acceptable.

Mr. Wakeham: I advise the hon. Lady that I regard one of those subjects as especially important. Her earlier point was about the Economic League. I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate on either subject in the immediate future.

Mr. W. Benyon: In view of the timetable motion that has been announced today for next week's business after the usual statutory virility period in


that Committee, would it not be sensible to reopen the report of the previous Procedure Committee and to reconsider this matter because it is becoming a farce?

Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that matter. In my speech on the timetable motion, I said that I certainly do not accuse the Opposition of any filibustering on the Bill. I brought in the timetable motion to meet many of my hon. Friend's objectives—to see that there is an orderly discussion of the Bill, right the way through its stages, so that all parts of the Bill can be discussed which, I believe, is what the House would like to see.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the confectionery industry? I have a special interest because I like the product, but at the same time a massive inflow from abroad is affecting the balance of payments and jobs in the confectionery industry in this country. I should like in a debate to refer to Rowntrees and its Black Magic box. Rowntrees has stopped putting in the liquid cherries. I am not going to buy any more boxes and there will be other people like me. That is bound to affect jobs, so we need a debate to try to overcome the problem.

Mr. Wakeham: One gets all sorts of questions in this House. I am not sure that the confectionery industry would be much improved by a debate, but it seems to me that it would be much improved by taking on board some of the better economic conditions in this country and the opportunities for enterprise that have been created under the Government. Let us hope that there is more competition in the industry.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding the fact that next week the Prime Minister will presumably be making a statement on the European summit in Brussels, would it not be helpful to have a debate soon so that hon. Members of all parties can say clearly to our European partners that we are not prepared to see any increase in the European budget until or unless expenditure is brought under control, which it manifestly is not at the moment?

Mr. Wakeham: These are important issues on which there will have to be time for debate. Although I cannot promise a special debate next week, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Monday's debate on agriculture to which some EC documents will be relevant. That seems an opportunity on which, with a little skill, my hon. Friend may be able to make points that he wants to make.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Leader of the House aware that allegations are circulating in the north-west of England that the recent liberal agreement reached with Turkey to allow tremendous imports of acrylic yarn into this country was a quid pro quo by the Prime Minister so that when she visits Turkey shortly she will be able triumphantly to announce that we have obtained a large civil engineering contract? Should not the right hon. Gentleman leave a note for the Prime Minister asking her to come here next week either to confirm or to deny those rumours?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give any credence or substantiation to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I will refer the matter to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend concede the demand from hon.

Members of all parties for an early debate on Northern Ireland? That would give the Government the opportunity of explaining how it is right to give the Irish Republic the right to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland when the Minister of Justice for the Irish Republic appears to think that it would be normal and proper in this country for the Government to interfere in the workings and considerations of the Court of Appeal in respect of the Birmingham six case.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend speaks for a large number of hon. Members. We shall have to see what can be done. I stick to my point that we should first have the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman please respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) calling for a statement on the Waldheim affair? Meanwhile, will he ask the Foreign Secretary whether we have in our control any documents that have been removed from the Public Record Office referring to those commandos and seek an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that until the matter is sorted out no British diplomat will attend any function in Austria that is attended by President Waldheim?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's strength of feeling. I take on board his point, but I cannot add to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members have sympathy with his difficulty in fitting the large amount of legislation into the parliamentary programme? In particular, he will know of my concern about the lack of debate on the proposals of the Select Committee on European Legislation that should be debated in the House before Ministers go to the Council of Ministers and make decisions on our behalf, particularly in regard to steel. He will be aware that the Prime Minister is in Brussels, but the House has not had the opportunity to discuss the European Economic Community budget since 1986.
Is it not time to look again at the way in which we deal with European legislation? Would it not be a good idea to set up the Procedure Committee and ask it to make recommendations to the House on how we should properly consider European legislation?

Mr. Wakeham: The way that my hon. Friend has suggested might be helpful. Certainly I recognise that some consideration of European matters has not been as good as it should have been. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for that, but there were special circumstances. It would be right to set up the Procedure Committee. Discussions are taking place, and if a decision is made to discuss that topic, it will have my blessing.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the Prime Minister is away and we can all talk freely, may I assure the Leader of the House that I believe him to be a good loser and that he will not attempt to frustrate the decision taken by the House about televising our proceedings? I do not have similar faith in the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. I am convinced, having watched her seethe, that


she is probably planning at this very moment some hideous and bloody revenge. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Select Committee will not be so packed as to thwart the decision of the House and that the Government will give a firm pledge that they accept that decision and that we will have a fair chance to consider the report of the Select Committee?

Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman talks about good losers and congratulating losers, I bow to his greater knowledge and experience in such matters and take it as a compliment. The Prime Minister has always felt that television in the House would benefit her and the Government, and no doubt she will take advantage of the benefit that the House has bestowed upon her. However, she thought that television was not in the interests of Parliament, and that is why she voted as she did.
The House has made a decision. I accept that decision and feel that we should implement it as best we can. The Select Committee will be charged with that task, and I hope that it will represent all sections of the House. I do not believe that any hon. Member should go on that Select Committee and attempt to frustrate the will of the House. That is how we deal with such matters.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As someone who voted in favour of the principle of televising the House but who does not want to be on the Select Committee, may I urge a cautious timetable on my right hon. Friend? When he spoke on Tuesday, he suggested a possible starting date of October. May I suggest that such a deadline is less important than giving the Select Committee plenty of time to examine the technical options? Perhaps it should not conclude its deliberations until the Government bring forward their proposals on the future of broadcasting which will mean more cable and satellite channels which would allow parliamentary programmes to be more generally spread across the spectrum without being squeezed into the duopoly channels that we presently have.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I should add to what I said in the debate. However, I recognise that I put forward an ambitious timetable. We shall set out to do what we can, but I agree that we must have the right answers for a proper experiment. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend does not want to serve on the Select Committee. It might be easier if we were to reverse the normal process so that those who do not want to be on the Select Committee write to me and those who do not write I shall assume do. I shall receive fewer letters that way.

Mr. Max Madden: Did the Prime Minister leave the Leader of the House a note saying that she has had second thoughts about robbing many pensioners and others on low incomes of their full entitlement to compensation for the Government's mistake in calculating the retail prices index? The Prime Minister may be one of Britain's richest pensioners, who does not even need to draw her full parliamentary salary, but will the Leader of the House send her a note, while she is wining and dining her way round Europe, saying that many people, such as my constituent, Mr. Jackson, can ill afford to be robbed of £8? This is a matter of public confidence in good government. There is no excuse for the Government robbing pensioners and others on low incomes of their full entitlement.

Mr. Wakeham: The Prime Minister did leave me a note explaining how, when the Government had dealt with the problem of the computer error, which regrettably resulted in an under-payment in pensions, the matter would be put right in a way which was generally acceptable to most people.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In framing the future business of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that early-day motion 275 on the abolition of the dock labour scheme now has 210 signatures?
[That this House believes that the National Dock Labour Scheme is an anachronism which both endangers the viability of jobs in the scheme areas and acts as a deterrent to job creation by new ventures; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish the scheme, and open negotiations immediately with employers and unions to bring that about.]

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that, but I cannot add anything to what I said on that question some weeks ago.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider further the contents of early-day motion 574?
[That this House notes the assurances given to the House on 31st March 1982 and 1st April 1982, Official Report, columns 333, 334 and 450, by both the present Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and by Lord Gray of Con tin, the then Minister of State for Energy, that the 'golden share' would offer effective safeguards for Britoil's independence; questions whether this has been shown to be the case; and calls for a full debate on the guidance given to the House by Mr. Chancellor and the noble Lord on the efficacy of the 'golden share' provisions when they were seeking honourable Members' approval for the privatisation of BNOC.]
Given the importance of an independent Britoil to the Scottish economy and the oil industry, and given the importance to the House of Commons of ensuring that promises made in 1982 are fully honoured in 1988, is there not the strongest case for a full debate on the matter, rather than a series thus far of ambiguous statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when my right hon. Friend made his statement. I suggest that he re-reads it because it was an authoritative statement. As I told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will make another statement should it be necessary.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on the dissemination of information? [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made only one correct statement since I became a Member of the House 10 years ago, and that was this afternoon.
May we debate the dissemination of information by local authorities so that I can draw the Secretary of State's attention to a mendacious document, circulated by post at public expense to all council tenants in Ealing, telling them that their council homes could be removed from them under housing legislation currently going through Parliament? That has frightened many pensioners and others, yet the members of Ealing council and many others


know, or should know, that under that legislation no secure council tenant will be transferred to any other landlord against his or her wishes.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is not right. The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. I am a member of the Committee that is considering it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was put to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham: One of the advantages of living in Ealing is that one is represented by my hon. Friend. He makes his point well, but I cannot arrange a debate on the subject next week.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prison Officers Association has now started to refuse people on remand entrance to certain London prisons? Indeed, it now appears that the number of prisoners detained in London police stations is once again rising quickly and alarmingly. Bearing in mind the exorbitant cost of housing prisoners in police stations and the damage that that does to police efficiency and manpower resources, will the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary either to come to the Dispatch Box in the early part of next week, or arrange a short debate in the week following, so that we can once again try to tackle the problem which is becoming alarming in its frequency?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is a serious problem and I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He will be answering questions in the House next Thursday and that will provide an opportunity to question him if he does not feel it right to make a statement before that time.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grossly inaccurate reports that have been circulated on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster fund, that the trustees have been extremely successful in collecting £6 million which will be dispensed to the needy within one year, that the trustees are grateful to the Government for their contribution of £1 million, and that the trustees do not intend to see a large tax payment? In fact, the Government are unlikely to see much tax at all because the children and orphans will be paid their money out of interest and should be able to reclaim tax paid on that. In addition, can my right hon. Friend confirm to the great British public who contributed to the fund, for which the trustees are grateful, that they will not see any of their contributions going back to Exchequer in tax because the only substantive amount of tax that is likely to be paid is on the commercial sale of records, not on the public's contributions?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I have seen the statement issued by the chairman of the disaster fund in which he said that he had chosen to establish the fund as a discretionary trust rather than as a charity, knowing full well the consequences of doing so. The object was to give the trust more freedom to make payments as it saw fit. The trustees are grateful to the Government for their prompt donation of £1 million, as they are for the donations from everybody else.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of remarks that were made earlier, will the Leader of the House be a little more positive and ensure that we have a

statement next week on the position of the commandos who, after being captured, were handed over to the Gestapo to be murdered in cold blood by an army unit which had first questioned them in which Waldheim was involved? Can the Austrians be forewarned, in the most diplomatic way possible, that the overwhelming majority of the British people, regardless of their political views or lack of them, find it difficult to understand how someone who, during the war, was an active accomplice of mass murderers can now be President of Austria? That stinks in the nostrils of ordinary people.

Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to comment on the substance of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I recognise his strength of feeling and that of the House, and I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Without wishing to associate myself with the rhetoric or the accusations of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his reply? Will he acknowledge that there is confusion in the country about the £8? May we have a statement next week, if only in the form of an extended written answer, clarifying the position?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall look into the matter, and see if anything can be done to assist my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but there is an important debate to follow. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House has already heard two different representations on the question of back payments to pensioners and those on invalidity and other benefits. The simple argument is that, if there are two recipients in the house with two order books, they receive two payments of £8; if there is only one with a dependent wife or children, that person will receive only £8, because there is only one book. The matter ought to be sorted out.
When the Leader of the House sends his message to the Prime Minister when she comes back, will he tell her that there is trouble at the mill as well? Some staff in the House—for instance, those working behind the tea bars— are threatening industrial action, for the simple reason that their back pay is being docked. Some people, instead of receiving £2,000 in back pay, have been offered £250, or, in some cases, £400. Will he look into the matter and get it sorted out? Otherwise he will have a strike on his hands.

Mr. Wakeham: I think that I shall also get into a spot of trouble if I do not look into it before I report it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chris Mullin: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 652?
[That this House, in view of the widespread disquiet at the recent judgement by the Court of Appeal in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, calls upon the Home Secretary to establish an independent review tribunal, along the lines recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Miscarriages of Justice, in particular to examine the claim by the honourable Member


for Sunderland South that he has traced and interviewed the four men responsible for the bombings and that they are all in Ireland.]
The motion has attracted 152 signatures in the space of 48 hours. It is signed by members of all parties and reflects widespread concern, not only in this place but in the country. It has implications not just for the six innocent men who have been in prison for 14 years, but for the judicial system, and the many issues arising from it. May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to find time for an early debate on the subject?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the terms of the motion, but I shall undertake to draw it to his attention. This is a matter of constitutional principle, and it should primarily be for the courts and the judical process to review convictions and the alleged miscarriages of justice.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 647 about the Blue Circle bid for Birmid Qualcast?
[That this House expresses concern that the future of one of Britain's smallest companies is threatened by a current take-over attempt; notes that Birmid Qualcast is a Midlands based company which also has companies in the North West, that its management and workforce have overcome the severe problems facing the foundry industry and have achieved a very viable castings business and also have become a market leader in consumer durables with household names such as New World, Potterton, Atco and Qualcast; further notes that the company is faced with a take-over bid from Blue Circle Cement, which whilst it has finance available, has no expertise in the field in which Birmid Qualcast operates; and calls upon the Government to look at take-over bids which threaten the independence of companies such as Qualcast, with consequences for the national interest and for employment in the manufacturing sector.]
If not, will he read it?
An efficient small company has reorganised itself, as the Government have asked small companies to do, and is now a leader in consumer durables, with household names such as Potterton, New World, Atco and Qualcast. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is something wrong with the Government's interpretation of "national interest" as being about free competition when a company such as Blue Circle Cement, which has no expertise in the field, can make a bid for Birmid Qualcast, and can threaten employment and a small company that has seen off foreign competitors? Will he arrange for an early debate?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 3 February his decision not to refer the proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. I do not therefore consider it necessary to devote further parliamentary time to the issue.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Leader of the House accept that an opportunity to debate the Economic League would give hon. Members on both

sides of the House the chance to agree that character assassination by blacklist is as unacceptable in Thatcher's Britain as it should have been in McCarthy's America?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We refer to each other by our constituencies or offices here.

Mr. Wilson: In that case, it is as unacceptable in the Prime Minister's Britain as in the senator from Wisconsin's America.
Does the Leader of the House recognise that it must be, and if it is not it should be, a matter of considerable importance to the House that prima facie evidence is very strong that a private enterprise secret police force is operating in this country, and that one of its leading lights is Lord Cayzer, whose companies are the leading financiers of the Conservative party? Does he agree that the existence of such a police force, apparently in connivance with the official police force, should be a matter of some interest to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise Government time to debate the issue, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have a word with his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to see whether they could find some time for it.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Has the leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 677, together with newspaper reports circulating in Scotland today, concerning the effective use of NHS funds to subsidise those working in the private health industry?
[That this House condemns the proposal that some Scottish health boards use public funds to place National Health Service patients in private hospitals; notes the statement made by the Chairman of the Murrayfield plc, operators of the Murrayfield private hospitals in Edinburgh, in his annual report in 1987 that "To date occupancy and profit are below budget" and the most recently published accounts of the Glasgow Independent Hospitals Ltd. Trading as AMI Ross Hall; considers that, far from being a lifeline to the National Health Service, these funds are a subsidy and a much needed boost to the private health industry; and calls upon the Secretary of State and boards, which have been instructed by him that their decision must reflect his policies, to ensure that no public funds be paid directly or indirectly to the private health industry, but are instead devoted to the National Health Service.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow a debate to give the House an opportunity to deplore that practice? His brief may tell him that the decision was made by Scottish health boards. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has informed all health boards that they are there to act as his agents and to do his bidding, and that the authorisation of the use of NHS funds in private hospitals must therefore have come from the highest level? Is it not time that we debated the issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on the subject, but the additional resources of £7·6 million for the National Health Service in Scotland announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 December were allocated to health boards for a range of patient needs, including the specific policy aim of reducing waiting lists. Some boards considered that, in their circumstances, that would be best achieved by buying services from the private sector.
The Government very much welcome the reduction in waiting lists that the boards are achieving, and note that the resources made available are being devoted entirely to the care of National Health patients.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that it has not gone unnoticed that the Government have managed to avoid a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee ever since the general election back in June last year? We recognise that it would be embarrassing for the Government to view the spectacle of a Committee containing only 10 Government supporters and 62 Opposition Members, but can the right hon. Gentleman begin to put that right by arranging for an early meeting of the Committee in Edinburgh to discuss the crisis affecting the National Health Service in Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that last time we tried to organise a Committee meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee there were certain difficulties that were not entirely of the Government's making. However, if there are demands for a meeting, I think that they would be best discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the general election, the Welsh Grand Committee has met on three separate occasions, and yet the Scottish Grand Committee has not met once? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has suggested, we are becoming a wee bit suspicious that the Secretary of State for Scotland is afraid to appear, because he will have only nine supporters — that is, if the Secretary of State for Defence is able to come along, which is very unlikely — whereas there will be 62 Opposition Members ranged against him.
Will the Leader of the House follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, go over the head of the Secretary of State for Scotland and arrange a number of meetings of the Committee so that we can discuss urgent

matters, such as education, the Health Service, the postponement of the bypasses in south Ayrshire and all the other matters which are causing great concern in Scotland today and which we are not having an opportunity to discuss?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman puts his case with such force that I think that he is worried that I may concede it, and he may have to go there. However, I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I rose only recently, and as usual reluctantly, because of a comment that the Leader of the House made a few moments ago. Would he care to rephrase and reconsider his response, in which he appeared to say that on the Select Committee on televising the House he would not want to have anybody who wanted to frustrate the will of the House? Does he not mean that he will keep off everybody who voted against the introduction of television cameras? Does he not think it wiser to have on the Committee knowledgeable, experienced hon. Members who know something about the dangers of the introduction and would want to ensure that very clever and subtle restraints are placed on the misuse and abuse of the televison cameras and to ensure that others external to the House do not choose the pictures, comment or selection? Does he not realise that there must be a large number of safeguards, because we do not want to put out to the public pictures of right hon. or hon. Members scratching their right buttock or picking their left nostril?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has no need to write me a letter; I have got the message. I said that I do not believe that anybody should go on the Select Committee with the purpose of frustrating the will of the House. I certainly recognise the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think the Select Committee should have representatives of all points of view in the House who are prepared to work to put into practice what the House has resolved, so I accept the substance of what he has said.

Claire Wise

Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the urgent need for Claire Wise, from Kidsgrove, to be admitted to the Birmingham children's hospital for open-heart surgery as a matter of urgency.
The matter is urgent because Claire, aged seven, needs open-heart surgery and is one of over 100 children waiting to be admitted to the Birmingham children's hospital heart unit for her operation. At Christmas her parents were advised that she should have this operation within three months, before she has outgrown the shunt operation she had some time ago. Since then I have pressed for Claire to be given an admission date so that she can have her operation before she becomes an emergency.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I raised the matter in the Adjournment debate on 19 January, and I have written to the Minister since then but he has not yet bothered to reply. Meanwhile, Claire's parents were sent a letter on Tuesday of this week telling them that she was to be admitted on Monday next. Imagine their relief. Imagine their despair when they received a second letter the very next day—yesterday—saying that the operation has had to be cancelled until further notice. I ask the House: what should they do? What would any parent do? What will the Government do?
I know that all scheduled operations for this week and next week are cancelled at the Birmingham children's hospital heart unit, which means that those on the waiting list will have to wait even longer. Time is running out for them and for Claire. It is common sense that intolerable strain is placed on all other vital organs of the body if open-heart surgery which is urgently needed is delayed. I know also that the intensive care unit is full. Those children who become emergencies will have to depend upon the good will of the nurses or being able to survive a journey to London.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to agree to adjourn the House so that we may debate the matter. How else can Government Ministers tell me what urgent steps they are taking to allocate extra money to designate intensive care unit beds for heart patients in the west midlands, to recruit and train nurses for intensive care beds locally and nationally, and to ensure that Claire gets her operation before it is too late? Without an Adjournment, I appeal to every person in the west midlands health region who cares about Claire and others like her to write to me expressing their concern so that the Government can be made to face up to their failure to provide health care for those who need it. Time is running out for Claire.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the cancellation of the operation on Claire Wise at the Birmingham children's hospital heart unit.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has said about her constituent. As she knows, the decision I have to take in these difficult matters is whether to give the matter precedence over the business set down for today or

Monday. I regret that I cannot find the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House. I hope that she will find other parliamentary ways of raising the matter in the Chamber.
Later— —

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has raised what you, Mr. Speaker, rightly described as a very serious matter. I understand the difficulties you are placed in when such a matter is raised. I believe I am right in saying that the relevant Departments are notified of the contents of applications under Standing Order No. 20. Is it not astonishing, in view of the seriousness of the application, that not one Minister from the Department of Health was present when the application was made? You have rightly said that my hon. Friend may find other opportunities of raising the matter. Many applications have been made concerning the Birmingham children's hospital, and it must be a matter of widespread public concern in the west midlands and in the country at large.
Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to make representations following the application from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, to the Department asking it to make a statement — possibly tomorrow morning, in view of the urgency of the matter — because that would be a convenient parliamentary opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me whether a statement is made. This would have been a very good question to put to the Leader of the House. I have heard the hon. Lady's application, but I could not give it precedence because of the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders. The House will appreciate that many operations are cancelled, sadly, for various reasons and it is my difficult duty to make a decision on exactly which should be given precedence and which should not.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Everyone recognises your difficulty and the criteria you apply, but there is growing concern among west midlands Members of Parliament that of necessity they are making representations about indvidual cases, many of which relate to the gross inadequacies of the Birmingham children's hospital and its capacity to provide the operations that children in that area need. I ask you to bear in mind, if there are further applications, that each application is but a single symptom of what is wrong. I ask you to give some consideration to the generality of the problem for people in the west midlands.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman might also bear in mind that he has the opportunity to raise those matters on Opposition Supply days.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has become noticeable in the past several weeks that the applications in relation to these children, almost without exception, as far as I am aware —I am here, like you, Mr. Speaker, every day—come from the west midlands. You have said that you find some difficulty with the criteria on single applications, such as those from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall. North


(Mr. Winnick), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). You say that you cannot accept an application under Standing Order No. 20 because the criteria do not allow it. When it becomes apparent that there is not one or two but a number of cases, which do not come from other regions, it becomes apparent, and I am not an hon. Member from the west midlands— —

Mr. Tony Marlow: It is an organised campaign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order is being put to me.

Mr. Skinner: What I am trying to say, despite that altercation, is that many of us, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, would be making representations from our own areas and not just the west midlands if we were faced with this sort of problem. Will you accept an application from, say, one of my hon. Friends for a debate on the Health Service in the west midlands? Would such an application meet with your approval?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I can do that. I take individual applications, but the Opposition have the opportunity to choose a general subject for debate once a week on average.

Mr. Dobson: rose— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. The question has been put to me. It is in order for the Opposition to use that procedure if they judge that is right. I have to take a very difficult decision, and I hope that the House realises it is not easy to adjudicate on these matters. I cannot give the House my reasons for refusing an application, but there are clinical and medical judgments as well as other matters to take into account.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that there are Opposition daysavailable, but if anyone checks the position he would discover that virtually every debate on the National Health Service that has taken place in the House in recent years has been in Opposition time. My right hon. and hon. Friends from the west midlands took the opportunity to raise the issue during the two most recent debates. The Birmingham issue gets lost in fairly general debates. We are looking for a prompt response to the crisis in the west midlands, or even some time from the Government. After all, they are responsible for resourcing and running the Health Service, although they are most reluctant to have any debates about it.

Mr. David Winnick: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a bit unfair on other hon. Members who wish to take part in debates to carry on with this matter, which is challenging my judgment. I make a judgment on these matters with extreme care. There may come a time when I feel that the criteria are right, but there are many issues at stake, not least the criterion of urgency, but also clinical judgments to make.

Mr. Winnick: I was in no way challenging your judgment, Mr. Speaker, nor have my hon. Friends done so. You will know that I made an application under Standing Order No. 20, and in relation to that case I think

it is right to say that the whole country is hoping and praying that the child will survive after 10 hours of surgery.
Bearing in mind the valid points made from the Opposition Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), would it not help you, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the constant applications that undoubtedly will be made if one of the Health Ministers makes a statement at the earliest opportunity about the crisis facing the Health Service in the west midlands? I hope that the Leader of the House will be notified of what we are saying. We are now facing the most difficult problem since the NHS came into being. Surely part of our job as Members of Parliament who represent the west midlands is to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. If a statement is made early next week on the crisis that I have referred to, there will be less need for these applications.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several Opposition Members, during the exchanges that have just taken place on the application under Standing Order No. 20, clearly heard the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and others of my hon. Friends who have made similar applications recently of participating in an organised campaign.
Bearing in mind the allegations that have been made only today about the hon. Member for Northampton, North evicting his tenants in Lambeth, it ill becomes him to make allegations of that sort on these very serious matters.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, I do not hear everything that goes on below the Gangway, but it does not help when allegations of that kind are shouted across the Chamber from a sedentary position.

Northern Ireland (Questions)

Rev. Martin Smyth: I raise a point of order arising out of Prime Minister's Question Time, which was highlighted in the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and the Leader of the House, on the problems of representatives from Northern Ireland, particularly those in the larger parties, in dealing with affairs affecting Northern Ireland.
If one examines the pattern of questions on Northern Ireland over the past three weeks, one sees that we have been missed, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House confirmed today what some of us have feared when he said to my hon. Friend, "How many times have you asked for an interview or a meeting with the Secretary of State?" As we understand it, this is the place to ask questions, the place of scrutiny. We feel frustrated that others can get in on the act but we apparently cannot. I should like some guidance from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman clear guidance. He had a perfect opportunity this afternoon to put a question to the Leader of the House on that very matter. I did not call him because he did not rise.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I have been standing on every occasion, even in Question Time today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, not every hon. Member can ask a question at Question Time. I keep a careful list of who is called and when and who rises and does not get called. The hon. Gentleman does very well.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH STEEL

Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Robert Atkins, presented a Bill to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the British Steel Corporation in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and for the subsequent dissolution of the Corporation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

The Royal Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): It is five years since I last took part in a single service debate in the House, and although the scene today in the Royal Air Force is clearly recognisable as having developed from that of five years ago, there is also much that has changed. In particular, the reorganisation of the top levels of the three services and the central staff in the Ministry of Defence, which took place in 1985, was not only an attempt to give greater weight to the tri-service approach to defence policy, but a recognition that the three services themselves, both in objectives and in operations, have been becoming increasingly interdependent.
It has been my clear impression, on returning to the Ministry of Defence, that although many anxieties were expressed at the time about the reorganisation, it has now not only been accepted by the individual services, but it has been found to work well in practice and has led to increased co-operation at all levels from the senior staffs to operational units around the world.
I believe that it is still right for Parliament to have the opportunity to look in closer detail at the single services. However, as became evident from the recent Army debate, there is now a substantial overlap of function from one service to another. In many areas of defence policy and activity the interests of one service cannot sensibly be discussed without taking account of the other two, or indeed looking at our defence capabilities as a whole. Although I want to devote most of my time today to discussing matters directly relating to the Royal Air Force, I also want to say something about certain aspects of defence strategy as a whole which, while highly relevant to the activities of the Royal Air Force, are not exclusive to any one service.
Before addressing those wider issues, I want to describe the current state of play in the continuous process of modernisation of the Royal Air Force, to say something of its training and exercise programe, and to deal with a number of matters concerning its personnel. Let me at the outset remind the House of the very wide range of functions which fall to the Royal Air Force to perform. In the first place, it has primary responsibility for the air defence of the United Kingdom, detecting enemy aircraft and countering them with interceptor fighters, with Bloodhound and Rapier missiles, and with Skyguard radar-controlled guns. In the Federal Republic of Germany it maintains a substantial part of the second allied tactical air force contributing both air defence and strike/attack aircraft.
The RAF also provides units for the early reinforcement of the northern region of the NATO area, and its Nimrods and Buccaneers protect shipping used for reinforcement and re-supply against the threat of hostile ships and submarines. In addition, the RAF provides airlift support for all three services and is capable of mounting operations at long distance. Out of area it supports our defence commitments in Belize, Ascension island, the Falklands, Cyprus and Hong Kong.
The major modernisation of the Royal Air Force is also a most striking feature of the last five years. Since 1979,


the Government have devoted very considerable extra resources to the RAF, amounting to £8 billion after allowing for inflation. Nine squadrons based in Germany and the United Kingdom have already been equipped in the strike/attack role with the Tornado GR1 which, with its terrain-following radar, provides a capability to penetrate enemy air defences far in advance of that of the Jaguars and Buccaneers that they replace.
Two more squadrons will be formed for the reconnaissance role, one based in RAF Germany, to replace the current Jaguar squadron, and, later, an additional squadron in the United Kingdom. During a recent visit to British Forces Germany, I was told that the Tornado was regarded with enthusiasm by pilots and had more than come up to expectations. Nevertheless, we are already planning a mid-life improvement package for the Tornado GRI for the early 1990s, to improve its ability to penetrate enemy air defences and to provide it with a night and all-weather attack capability, and so enable it to continue to meet the threat into the next century.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I ask this question out of real interest because I do not know the answer. Obviously, in the future, our air defences are more likely to be penetrated by nuclear missiles than by aircraft, because we can always intercept aircraft. That has always been the role of the RAF, of which I was proud to be a part in my youth. Which service or services will be responsible for trying to offset any penetration of air space by nuclear missiles?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman asks a question about the state of play when a war reaches that level. The resources which I have described are for the protection of the United Kingdom during the conventional stage of a war. All the forces would be involved in detecting and, if necessary, responding to nuclear attack.

Mr. Heffer: With respect, this is an important matter. That was the most bland reply that I have ever heard in the House. When the Minister says "all the services", what exactly does he mean? Will he explain how the services would be combined? Which service would put its finger on the trigger to try to stop the missile coming? The House and the nation have a right to know exactly who would be responsible.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman wants to pursue his point. All the forces would be involved. There is the question of detection and then of response, but, even if it were appropriate to go into those details today, it would certainly be wrong, either now or in the future, for this country or any of our NATO allies to spell out exactly the way in which we would respond to such an attack.

Mr. Bill Walker: This is a most fundamental and interesting question. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have had peace in western Europe for 40 years because we have deterred? Deterrence prevents this hypothetical matter becoming a reality. Unless we modernise our equipment, which the Labour party appears to oppose, we shall never be able to intercept missiles of any kind. The Labour party does not support the strategic defence initiative. If our equipment were not modernised, the enemy would not be deterred.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of our defence policy and of that of our NATO allies is to deter war and to prevent the situation which has been

described. The assets of the RAF and of the other services are designed to make it clear that there would be no point in any adversary attacking us in the first place. That is why we have been modernising the aircraft of the RAF and the equipment of the other forces.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), it would be appropriate for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, when he replies, to answer his hon. Friend? The situation described by the hon. Gentleman could occur only under a Labour Government because the Labour party follows a policy of unilateral disarmament.

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but it is difficult to give any credibility to the pronouncements of the Opposition Front Bench about any aspects of defence.
The Harrier has proved itself over a number of years to be one of the mainstays of the RAF's offensive support capability. However, we are now planning over time to replace the GR3 with the new Harrier GR5, which will have substantially improved range, payload and avionics. The House will recall the tragic loss in October of a Harrier GR5 test pilot and the subsequent ditching of his aircraft. That has inevitably meant some delay to the programme. However, it is clearly right, in view of the accident, that the most careful consideration should be given to the factors which caused it, that any recommendations arising from the post-accident studies should be implemented and that all the systems of the aircraft should be thoroughly tested. Test flying is expected to resume shortly and will include testing of the Ferranti inertial navigational system which has not yet been cleared for RAF flying.
Provided that the remaining trials programme does not identify any further problems, conversion training should start later this year. Sixty two GR5s have been ordered so far and their delivery should be completed within the next two to three years. We plan to meet our requirement at that stage for an advanced combat aircraft with a close-in agile fighter capability, to supplement the Tornado, with the European fighter aircraft, in the development of which we are collaborating with Germany, Italy and Spain.

Mr. Robert Hayward: My hon. Friend referred to collaboration with West Germany, Spain and other countries involved in the development of the European fighter aircraft. The Government have always been firm in their commitment to that aircraft and the "engining" through Rolls-Royce in association with other European countries. Will he tell us what negotiations he has had recently, particularly with the West Germans, and whether they have indicated their firm support for the European fighter aircraft and its European engine?

Mr. Stewart: I have no reason to believe that they do not support that aircraft, but procurement is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement and of my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I shall draw their attention to the point raised by my hon. Friend.
In addition to these major improvements, we have also made considerable progress in the air defence of the United Kingdom. Thirty four of the air defence variant of the Tornado, our new interceptor aircraft, were delivered during the last year, bringing the total to 73 out of the 162


on order. The first Tornado ADV squadron at Coningsby became operational on schedule at the beginning of November and a second squadron which has now been formed will become operational later this year. The Tornado ADV is armed with the highly effective Skyflash medium-range air-to-air missile and the shorter range Sidewinder which proved its worth during the Falklands campaign.
Although there have been difficulties with the aircraft's Foxhunter air-intercept radar, radars to an agreed interim standard have been fitted which already provide the aircraft with a capability superior to that of the Phantoms and Lightnings which they are replacing. To provide an effective airborne early warning system for the 1990s, the Government have ordered seven Boeing E3 aircraft which will provide the capability to mount continuous patrols and identify the approach of enemy aircraft at an early stage. This will become increasingly important as the Warsaw pact develops its capabilities for operations at low level.
While the E3 will extend the range and quality of our coverage, we are also now well advanced with the modernisation of our air defence command and control systems and ground-based radar. The bulk of the equipment involved in these enhancements, which are known as the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment — or by the dreadful acronym IUKADGE for short — has already been built and installed, and some elements are already in service. Remaining items will be introduced during the next four years. But we are already capable of effective monitoring of the 500,000 square miles comprising the United Kingdom air defence region, and our quick reaction alert aircraft are scrambled on average three or four times each week to intercept and identify Soviet military aircraft which penetrate this area.
Next I want to say a word about helicopters. In last month's Army debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement told the House that a trial involving 6 Brigade, and including helicopter squadrons from RAF Germany, had demonstrated the value of an air-mobile force, and that we proposed to convert 24 Brigade to this role. There has been a good deal of debate during the past year about which service should have possession of the support helicopter force. Before shifting responsibility for these assets from the RAF to the Army we would need to have clear evidence of advantages sufficient to outweigh the obvious problems of upheaval and dislocation and transitional costs.
I can tell the House that, following a study, no such advantages have been identified and we do not therefore propose to make any such change. That is, of course, a different question from where the RAF and Army helicopters supporting 24 Brigade should be located, and that is a matter to which we shall be giving consideration in due course. Until the 1990s, Chinook and Puma helicopters, as part of their overall support role for both the Army and the RAF, will provide the necessary heavy-lift capability, but after that we are looking to replace the Puma with the Anglo-Italian EH101 and to order an initial batch of 25 such aircraft for the deployment of men and material.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can my hon. Friend say what studies are being undertaken to see how effective a helicopter is as a delivery system for anti-tank weapons?

Mr. Stewart: That is a different question from the one that I have been discussing. The best weapons systems for the anti-tank role are kept continuously under review, particularly in the light of advances in the technology of tank defence. That is a matter that the Ministry of Defence is anxious to appraise all the time. Looking a few years ahead, it is clear that helicopter weapons capability against tanks will be an important — perhaps increasingly important—aspect of future warfare.

Mr. Heffer: This is an important matter. Where precisely will the division be between RAF-operated and Army-operated helicopters? What role will each play? Which areas will the different services work in? In the last analysis, who will take the decisions? I ask because I was involved in these matters at one time. The division between the services is important. I should like to know where overlapping takes place.

Mr. Stewart: Responsibility would have to be resolved according to the circumstances of each case. In the case of converting 24 Brigade to an air-mobile force with the need for helicopters, there would be a joint command structure. It is likely that that would rest with the Army, which would be in charge of the brigade. As I said at the beginning of my speech, examples of co-operation between the forces have been increasing greatly. The RAF provides a support helicopter service for all three services. The service is attached to a unit, under Army or Naval command according to the needs. In this case the question at issue was whether the ownership and control of the assets should be transferred permanently to the Army. We came to the conclusion that it would not be a sensible move.

Mr. Neville Trotter: As my hon. Friend is aware, 6 Brigade has been based in Germany and so has the support helicopter force. As I understand it, 24 Brigade is to be based in the north of England, where it is now. Where is the support helicopter force for that brigade likely to be based? Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope of an additional squadron being formed in this country to support 24 Brigade?

Mr. Stewart: It would be wrong for me to chance my arm on that. I addressed the point specifically. It is a question that we have to resolve, but I do not think that we should do so without considering all the factors. We have announced a general decision. Once the decision in principle has been made, we can consider the best ways of implementing it. I take my hon. Friend's point.
There has also been considerable interest expressed in the House about a proposal which was put to the Ministry of Defence by Bristow Helicopters Ltd. to replace the existing service search and rescue function by a civilian contract. We have been considering whether our current arrangements for SAR could be improved, and in our studies we have felt it right to take into account the ideas which Bristow has put forward. Although we have not yet reached a final conclusion about the most effective disposition of our resources for SAR, I can tell the House today that we have made a firm decision that, wherever there is a military requirement for search and rescue, it should continue to be provided by the RAF and the Royal Navy.

Mr. Barry Field: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his announcement, which affects my constituency. I appreciate that this is an RAF debate, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the decision will also apply to search and rescue which is operated by the Royal Navy?

Mr. Stewart: I did say that, wherever there was a military requirement for search and rescue, it would continue to be provided by the RAF and the Royal Navy.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: As the Minister appreciates, there has been deep concern in Snowdonia and in other mountain areas because of the essential role played by the RAF in support of mountain rescue services, as we saw only last weekend. Did I understand the Minister to say that that support will remain and that there is no threat of privatisation hanging over that aspect of the helicopter support service?

Mr. Stewart: I have said that where there is a military requirement for SAR, which means the great majority of the area of the United Kingdom, the position will be as the hon. Gentleman understands.

Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be warmly welcomed throughout the land, and particularly in Cornwall where we have the Royal Naval air station at Culdrose, the biggest helicopter base in western Europe? I think he can accept that all Back Benchers will agree that he has made the right decision.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a complex issue. Although we were under pressure to make an announcement earlier, the question had to be treated carefully and thoroughly. We have come to our conclusion after most careful consideration of all the issues.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I want clarification. I do not understand what the Minister said about a military requirement, or whatever his words were. For instance, Bristow has managed to get its foot in the door in the Western Isles and in Orkney and Shetland. Many people would think that there was a military requirement in areas where there are naval vessels. Did the Minister mean that the RAF search and rescue service will operate only in areas where there is a military base? Indeed, there is an RAF base in Stornoway. What is the distinction? Surely the whole country is liable to the need for military as well as civil call-out. Therefore, would it not be better to say that the search and rescue service over the whole country will be kept in the public sector?

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I was foolish to give way so much and not continue with what I wanted to say.
The RAF and the Royal Navy have provided a service of proven quality, which often involves a high level of skill and courage, and which we know is greatly valued. Last year, for example, RAF and RN search and rescue helicopters flew almost 1,500 sorties and rescued more than 950 people, both military and civilian. We are satisfied that there is a military requirement for the RAF's and the RN's SAR service to continue, and we also believe that that decision will be welcomed by the wider community. Among the military factors that influenced us were the service's valuable role in the training of aircrew; the need to keep a military search and rescue capability for operational crises in peace time, as well as in transition to war, and war; and the need to avoid risk of discontinuity

in this vital service at some time in the future. In our judgment, those and other important military considerations outweigh the possible modest financial gains that a civilian contract might have provided.
The military requirement for a military search and rescue service extends around the vast bulk of our coastline and inland mountainous areas, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport may decide to supplement the military service by letting civilian contracts. If he does, he will no doubt consider any approach made by Bristow, whose operations in the Shetlands and the Hebrides have demonstrated its ability to provide a good service.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend will will know of my concern, for as long as I have been a Member of the House, about the issue of privatisation, and I am delighted to hear his response on this matter. I also heard him say that he had not yet made the final decision on the issue of where detachments will be placed, and whether there may be some changes. In my constituency, RAF Brawdy, which covers the whole west Wales coast, provides an excellent service for military and civilian personnel throughout the region and out into the Irish sea.
Can my hon. Friend assure me that when consideration is being given to the future of the Brawdy detachment he will bear in mind the fact that if it were taken away we should be reliant on RAF Valley in Anglesey or Chivenor in Devon which would very much increase the flying times for the area?

Mr. Stewart: I take my hon. Friend's point. One of the reasons why I thought it right to make the announcement in the debate today, before the final dispositions have been established and before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has completed his analysis of the position, was to enable us to hear the response of hon. Members and to take into account the points that may be raised on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who I hope will be responding to the debate, has been closely involved with these matters and I hope that he will be able to answer the points that will be raised in the debate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Would the Minister spend a little more time explaining his intentions? I admit that I am confused. He says that the search and rescue facilities will be maintained under the respective services; then he says that the Department of Transport may let contracts. In what areas can it do that? The crunch question is: does the Minister intend to maintain the capability at its present level, or does he intend to let the civilian service run down?

Mr. Stewart: We do not intend to run it down. We intend to maintain a military capability where we have judged that necessary, and where we have judged it necessary is reflected in the existing pattern. It is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to decide to supplement it, but not as a result of its being diminished. As regards my right hon. Friend's responsibilities in these matters, it would be better to allow his study to be completed before making any announcement on the matter.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Our concern is that the quality of the service provided at the moment is


of such a high standard largely because, as the Minister said, there were about 950 operations last year. Civilian operations complement military ones, because they enable the crews to get the necessary training that the former add to the latter. How will the Minister differentiate between the military and civilian operations in this respect?

Mr. Stewart: We are not differentiating between them in this respect. We say that the military coverage should remain, but it is open to the Secretary of State for Transport, if he considers it necessary, to supplement, for purely civilian purposes, the services provided by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. I should have thought that was welcome. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value of the services' provision in this area; it was one of the factors that weighed considerably with us when making the decision.
As the Royal Air Force approaches its 70th birthday in a few weeks' time, its reputation stands second to none in the world today. But the high level of performance which it achieves would not be possible if the RAF could not attract and retain men and women of the highest calibre and provide training for them to the highest standards. That involves not only the routine training of aircrew and ground staff, but also exercises in which aircraft and air defences can be co-ordinated. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, last year again, the RAF did particularly well in tactical exercises evaluated by NATO. Cooperation with the air forces of our Western allies is an essential part of the role of the RAF both in its forward deployment on the continent and in the air defence of the United Kingdom.
In April this year our air defences will be rigorously tested in an exercise named Elder Forest, which will be the largest air defence exercise in the United Kingdom in recent years. Aircraft from eight NATO nations will fly more than 1,000 simulated hostile sorties against our air defences over a wide area of land and sea. Our defending forces will include a dozen squadrons of RAF fighters, supported by early warning and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, while on the ground RAF missile systems and command and control facilities will be fully activated. Two type 42 destroyers acting as area defence ships will also be taking part, illustrating not only how complex and interactive air warfare has now become, but the increasing co-operation between the services.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister started by saying that it is important to retain pilots. He then moved on as rapidly as he could to talk about anything but that. Can the Government retain pilots under their present policies, or are more of them leaving the service than are being recruited and trained? What is the cost of training the pilots that we are losing? Is it in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds for each one lost?

Mr. Stewart: I should have resisted the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I mentioned that I wanted to discuss both attracting men and women to, and retaining them in, the Royal Air Force and the exercises. Before I had finished the exercises half of my comments, the hon. Gentleman asked me about matters of personnel, to which I shall come in a few moments.
The flexibility of air power is also demonstrated by the operations which the RAF undertakes outside the NATO

area. Later in the year the RAF plans to participate in a major air defence exercise in Malaysia and Singapore in support of the five power defence arrangements. That exercise, which is scheduled to take place in September, will be the largest of its kind ever held in the region, and United Kingdom participation will include Tornado F3s. Some of the RAF aircraft involved, as well as other aircraft and a parachute display team, will then take part in an air show to be held in October at the Royal Australian air force base at Richmond, near Sydney, to mark the Australian bicentenary.
Last November I visited the Falklands and was greatly impressed by the enhanced defensive capability and the degree of tri-service co-operation resulting from the redeployment of the garrison from Port Stanley to the new site at Mount Pleasant during the course of last year. The new airport at Mount Pleasant means that the islands could be rapidly reinforced if ever the need arose, and this enables us to maintain a smaller garrison there than would otherwise be necessary. Last December the RAF achieved a non-stop flight from the United Kingdom to the Falklands, without a stop at Ascension, involving air-to-air refuelling on both legs of the journey. Next month we intend to hold the first full-scale reinforcement exercise, known as Fire Focus. The exercise will be directed by Headquarters RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe, and will take place between 7 and 31 March. It will involve the reinforcement of the garrison's air defences and an airlift of troops to the Falklands, followed by unit exercises to take advantage of the excellent training facilities in the islands. Further information about this exercise is available in a Ministry of Defence press release today.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a good thing to have maximum publicity for what he has just said to deter any successor to Galtieri who might be foolish enough to chance his arm, and that the fact that we can now reinforce by getting wide-bodied jets there in one hop alters the situation radically?

Mr. Stewart: I believe that such deterrence already exists. I only hope that the reinforcement capability that we can demonstrate in this exercise will strengthen that deterrence, as my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Mr. Trotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent 820-mile flight by a search and rescue helicopter from the Falklands to South Georgia—having to land on a Navy ship halfway to South Georgia—to recover an injured soldier is an example of the skill and ability of the search and rescue force operating in that very hostile environment?

Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and join him in congratulating those concerned on that achievement.
On the recruiting side, the past year has been a successful one. Targets were fully met in the main officer branches with shortfalls confined to the professional entry branches, such as medical officers. Ground airman recruiting has also gone well, with 90 per cent. of vacancies for the current financial year filled by the end of December.
Retention is, of course, another essential element in ensuring that the RAF has adequate trained manpower to


fulfil its role into the 1990s and beyond. In this area, too, I am pleased to be able to report that there has recently been improvement. There has in particular been a welcome reduction in applications for premature voluntary retirement in the course of the past year. PVR applications from officers generally fell during 1987 by 19 per cent. Indeed, there has been a reduction of 26 per cent. in PVR applications from pilots, while for fast-jet pilots under the age of 38—our key operational aircrew—there has been a major decrease of 57 per cent. It is, in any case, very important to keep PVR rates in perspective; they are now under 3 per cent. of trained strength for both applications and exits. The total number of pilots leaving the RAF, including those opting for PVR, has over the past three years averaged less than 200 a year, which is more than 20 per cent. lower than the figure averaged a decade ago.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend comment on the number of fast-jet pilots who take up their option of leaving at the age of 38, because I think that that statistic ought to be read with the one that he has just given for the PVR rates?

Mr. Stewart: I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give the exact figure, but one of the reasons for the high levels of exit in recent years has been the end of the eight-year short service commission for pilots and others which was introduced in 1978 when the Government of the day were having extreme difficulty in recruiting at all.

Mr. Sayeed: The figures that my hon. Friend has announced for premature release will be very welcome. Will he confirm that between 1978 and 1979, when the Labour Government were in power, 6·8 per cent. was the figure for premature release for men in the armed services?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the figures were much higher at that time, and, of course, morale in the services was very low.
Another matter which I know is of considerable concern to a number of hon. Members is the question of low flying. I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House that the Government are very well aware that many people consider military low-flying training an almost intolerable intrusion into their daily lives. We in no way underestimate the strength of feeling of or the inconvenience borne by some of those who see more of this activity than others. The RAF, too, is fully aware of its responsibilities to the public and has no wish to antagonise the very people its members are training to protect. The RAF does, of course, do some of this training overseas. For instance, regular exercises held in Germany, the United States and Canada provide the opportunity for RAF combat aircraft to train at operational low level and carry out realistic practise using live ammunition. But the fact remains that if they were ever deployed in war it would only be by flying as close to the ground and as fast as possible that our aircrew would have a reasonable chance of avoiding enemy radar and defence systems. The training is, therefore, essential and it is simply not practicable to do it all "somewhere else".
Let us not forget that the need for low-flying training is directly related to the threat which NATO forces face in the central region of Europe. In any hostilities we can assume that a major priority of the Warsaw pact would be the destruction of our air defence capability, including

aircraft and airfields, and unless we were able to retaliate in kind our land forces in Europe would he at an impossible disadvantage. The Warsaw pact enjoys enormous superiority in numbers, in tactical aircraft as well as in artillery and tanks. While I welcome the efforts currently being made to draw up a negotiating mandate for conventional arms control, I do not think that we should underestimate the difficulty of achieving a satisfactory agreement to limit conventional arms in Europe.
In the first place, we shall need to know a great deal more in detail about Soviet forces than the Soviet Union has for many years been ready to divulge. There are some grounds for regarding the recent Soviet attitude to the provision of information as more encouraging. But I must say that so far glasnost has been a pretty selective process. Without full and reliable data from the other side, which has been lacking throughout the 14 years of talks in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions, it is going to be difficult to establish a workable basis for negotiation. Even if, as I hope, these problems can be resolved, Warsaw pact forces outnumber those of NATO by such a large margin that we must be very careful not to agree to anything that would undermine the minimum capability which we shall need to maintain the security of the West.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman now assure us, because the Secretary of State was not able to do so at the last Defence Question Time, especially in view of the superiority in tactical aircraft which he says the Warsaw pact has, that Britain's Tornado aircraft will be included in these very important conventional arms reduction talks?

Mr. Stewart: We are not suggesting that any conventional capability should be excluded; and that, of course, includes the conventional capability of dual capable systems, and there are ground-based forces that are dual capable.
Let us remember that arms control is not an end in itself. The objective is to maintain our security, and, if possible, to enhance it, with whatever degree of arms control can be consistent with that. The Labour party wants things the other way round—arms control as the first priority, regardless of what it would mean for the ability of NATO to deter war or to respond effectively in the event of attack.
We can all welcome the fact that, since the RAF debate last year, agreement has been reached that one of the activities in which the service is involved should be brought to an end. I refer, of course, to the historic INF agreement in Washington last December which, if ratified, will lead in due course to the removal of cruise missiles from RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth. A few years ago, we on the Conservative Benches were sick of being lectured by the Labour and Liberal parties about what would happen if such missiles were deployed. They said it would add to the risk of war, it would make the United Kingdom more vulnerable and it would wave goodbye to any prospect of agreement with the Russians to remove their SS20s. How wrong they were. We all know that if the British Government and our Western allies had not remained firm in our resolve, there would never have been an agreement on INF at all, because there would not have been anything for the Russians to negotiate about.
Once again it has been proved that, in matters of defence, the wisest course is usually to do the exact opposite of what the Labour party recommends. It is in that light that we must look at the truly astonishing remarks made by the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), during the Army debate last month. He told the House then that he did not believe that NATO's concept of flexible response and forward defence was realistic any more. Indeed, he went further and told us that he had always believed it was obsolete. He went on to say that NATO should drop the whole idea of follow-on forces attack, which is the essential means of preventing the Warsaw pact from full deployment of the huge reinforcements that it can hold in reserve.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps the Minister would quote the words that I used in respect of follow-on forces attack. As there is some asymmetry — that is now the fashionable world — in respect of Soviet and Warsaw pact forces, I suggested that one bargaining element to ensure a reduction in the Soviet forces would be for NATO to consider—if there was such a reduction—dropping any plans for follow-on forces attack. I mentioned that in the context of a mutual agreement in respect of a reduction in Soviet forces.

Mr. Stewart: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman believes that he would be able to cope with the question of Soviet military doctrine — an aggressive doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is a rich purple passage for those who want enlightenment about the extraordinary defence policies of the Labour party.
Flexible response and forward defence mean that NATO must be seen to be able and ready to mount a robust defence against any attack at whatever level it deems appropriate, and to have some degree of choice in the manner of that response. We have to make it absolutely clear to the Soviet Union and its allies that the risks of aggression far outweigh any possible gains that they could hope to achieve. Conventional weapons alone can never pose an unacceptable risk to a nuclear-armed opponent and the need for a range of both nuclear and conventional weapons in Europe will remain for as far ahead as we can see. It is a melancholy fact, but not a surprising one, that flexible response, which is the foundation of NATO strategy, no longer enjoys the support of the Labour party. There can be little sense in the Labour party's strategy, which makes it clear in advance that, in the event of hostilities, the territory from which any attacks are likely to be launched would be immune from retaliation. The whole concept of so-called defensive defence is based on a fallacy. People do not win many tennis matches by standing on the baseline and blocking the ball back against an opponent who can hit it harder.
Fortunately, the defence of our country is not in the hands of those who advocate such policies. The Government, whom the people have chosen, recognise the high priority of securing the defence of the realm. We are privileged in this country to be supported by armed forces of outstanding skill, courage and dedication. I hope that it will be a long time before the Royal Air Force has to

fight again to protect our interests; but it is a very great reassurance to all of us to know that, if ever it had to do so, we could rely upon it. The RAF deserves our thanks.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I join the Minister in congratulating the RAF on its pending 70th anniversary. I am sure that the House would also wish to congratulate it on its various successes over the past year in the different competitions in which it has participated. The 70 years of the RAF have been years of distinguished service. It was born out of the conflict of the first world war, and, in retrospect, it seems incredible that the RAF was just 21-years-old when it led the fight for the Battle of Britain. I know that the House would wish to salute those who have dedicated their lives to, and especially those who have given their lives in, the defence of our freedoms.
At this time it would also be appropriate to congratulate Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig on attaining not only that post but that of Chief of the Defence Staff. We are confident that the country will be well-served by this distinguished and able officer.
Today's debate will be much poorer without the special contributions previously made by my friend Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, the former Member for Eccles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear. Hear."] As an ex-navigator, he often confessed that he did not always find the target during the war, but I believe that he often found the target on the Conservative Benches, and always with great courtesy. I am sure that both sides of the House join me in wishing him a long, happy and healthy retirement.
I must declare a personal, vested interest in the RAF. I remember, as a young boy, going down to the pit top holding the hand of one of my brothers who, during the war, left the pit when he was 17 to join the RAF. He quickly became my hero by being commissioned and becoming a member of 617—the Dambusters Squadron — and by being awarded the DFC. Obviously in a mining village he was much admired, and he certainly was my hero. He stayed in the RAF as a regular officer and, incidentally, set an example for a whole generation of nephews who are making their careers in the RAF.
I should like to crave the indulgence of the House to take the opportunity to offer my best wishes to Air Commodore Pat King, another family member, who retired yesterday from his post as Director of Flight Safety in the RAF.
I mention such personal matters for a particular reason. In a recent conversation with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) he mentioned, among other things, the egalitarianism of the RAF. He said that, perhaps more than in any other service, ability counted for more than background. That is still the case. That principle has emphasised to my hon. Friends and myself that the defence of this country and the desire to defend it is not the prerogative of the Tory party. Indeed, the working-class communities have contributed the lives of many of their young men to that task.
Last October I began my speech in the defence debate by stating that, on both sides of the House, there is a strong commitment to the defence of this country. However, I must repeat once more that I strongly resent the implication, voiced by Conservative Members, that that is not the case on the Labour Benches. The Labour party is, and always has been, strongly and firmly committed to national defence. It is not a matter of


conjecture. One need only look at the record to see what the Labour party did when in power. To suggest otherwise is a mischievous lie and the meanest of political propaganda. The decisions made by the Labour party in office were made with regard to the national interest, in loyalty to our allies, and in opposition to injustice and tyranny wherever they existed.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party is committed to the Royal Air Force and to the defence of the country. Would he like to tell us when a Labour Government last increased defence expenditure?

Mr. Rogers: That question — like most of the statistics that are bandied around — is not only irrelevant, but meaningless. I shall deal with these issues later to illustrate my argument, rather than answer irrelevant questions.
It is not the Tory party, but the Labour party in office, that has made the really tough decisions on Britain's defence. Perhaps not all of us will agree on the merits of those decisions, but the Labour party in power made the decisions that it had to make in the national interest, and it would he wrong to suggest otherwise. I remind Conservative Members that it was the Labour party in power that decided to enter NATO. It was the Labour party in power that gave a commitment to European defence. It was the Labour party in power that decided to re-arm at the time of Korea and to support the United Nations' forces there—something which the Secretary of State knows about. It was the Labour party in power that decided to develop an independent nuclear weapon strategy. Contrary to the propaganda and lies of the Government, the next Labour Government will make the tough decisions necessary for the proper defence of this country.

Mr. Sayeed: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party was in power in 1967 when both the First and the Second Sea Lord resigned because the Labour party would not provide the Navy with adequate funds.

Mr. Rogers: We do not have to go that far back to find officers who have left the services. Many tens and hundreds of officers are leaving the Air Force at the moment, perhaps because of bad morale. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) should take the medicine. Indeed, one does not have to go very far back to find examples of Ministers resigning because of Government cuts. That has happened within the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: If the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) wants to go that far back, he should look at the record a little more thoroughly. The reason why Mayhew, the Minister responsible for the Navy, resigned was that he wanted another aircraft carrier to carry on the east of Suez policy. If the Government really want to continue an east of Suez policy, they will need a great many more aircraft carriers than they have now.

Mr. Rogers: Contrary to popular belief and Tory propaganda, the present Government are not very good at defence. If Conservative Members bother to apply their limited mentalities, they will find that it is self-evident that the Government are not very good at the management of defence. This is a subject to which I shall return. Furthermore, it is now becoming pretty obvious to

everyone that they are not very good at defence policy, either. That criticism is made, not only by the Labour party, but by someone who knows better than any Conservative Member and who until relatively recently acted as a permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence. His impartiality and political objectivity are beyond doubt. I would certainly venture to guess that he never voted Labour.
Let us examine what Sir Frank Cooper said—before the Government slap an injunction on him. He said:
The politics of expediency run the Ministry of Defence —rather than a properly worked out policy.
That is not surprising, but it must have been taken to grotesque extremes for a permanent secretary to have said that. The man is no raving Leftie. He is not even a member of the Labour party. Sir Frank Cooper is chairman of United Scientific Holdings, deputy-chairman of Babcock International and a director of Rothschild, the bankers, besides having been a permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence during this Government's lifetime. Sir Frank continued:
ministers made lots of speeches about efficiency and new procurement initiatives and managed to give the impression that things were happening in defence. Instead, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher's successive administrations have failed to tackle issues that will not go away.
What are the issues that will not go away? Sir Frank says that the main issues are Britain's international role in defence and the ability to pay for an over-full defence programme. He said:
Mr. Michael Heseltine, the former Secretary of State for Defence, adamantly refused to conduct a review of those issues.
Opposition Members have said that on many occasions, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I am sorry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)— —

Mr. Sayeed: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Rogers: It is not wishful thinking. If we can convince the voters of the desperate state of our defences, we shall be in office sooner rather than later. [Interruption.] I know that this hurts the hon. Member for Bristol, East, but he should be quiet and listen. He might learn something.
Sir Frank went on to say:
In brief, the politics of expediency have not changed."—
under this Government—
They continue to override both policy and management.
The Minister talked about the reorganisation in the Ministry of Defence and extolled its virtues. Sir Frank continued:
The vast amount of reorganisation, running down and changes in staff in the ministry and its research and development establishments meant that they had neither the capability nor the resources to sort out industry development problems in the way that had been possible 10 or 20 years previously. Ministers were deprived of proper advice during discussions over the cancellations of GEC's contract to develop the Nimrod radar surveillance aircraft in 1986.
So much for the Government's policy. Sir Frank Cooper, an ex-permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, thus destroys the Government's credibility on defence policies.
Opposition Members note that the Government like to project a certain image of themselves, that of streetwise business men who know their way about the City and are much smarter than the people who work there. They like


to give the impression that they really know the score. In answer to a question on defence in 1985 the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has great commercial experience. He is not a person who is likely to be out manoeuvred". —[Official Report, 21 February 1985; Vol. 73 c. 1246.]
In other words, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) could handle the French, the Italians and the Germans because he was a better business man than the business man.
John Harvey-Jones knocked that theory on the head and gave a rather apt quotation last Sunday. He said:
Business men make even lousier politicians than politicians make business men, and that's saying something!
That statement is true of the Government: they are pretty hopeless at managing defence. We know that Mr. Harvey-Jones is correct. Decisions taken by the Government are not always wise, and their management of programmes has not always been correct.

Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Gentleman has extolled the virtues of United Scientific Holdings as a source of advice. Will he acknowledge that the Government have responded by appointing a business man with such a background as head of defence procurement to blend politics with business?

Mr. Rogers: Peter Levene has been there for some time, but as yet he has not straightened out the Government. On many issues, policy has not been sorted out. I would rather trust the judgment of an ex-permanent secretary, Sir Frank Cooper, than that of the hon. Gentleman. Britain's defence policy is in a critical state. When Sir Frank Cooper talked about the over-full nature of our defence commitment, he was right. Rather than waving flags or running around shouting gung-ho, it would be better if Conservative Members applied themselves to the problems with Britain's defences that will manifest themselves in the 1990s. Britain's defence policy and defence equipment are in a critical state because of the Government's mismanagement and ineptness. They are a Government of bunglers, quick-money artists and expedience. They have subordinated the national interest to an ill-conceived economic theory, followed by blatant auctioneering. When they make mistakes, they wrap them up in secrecy.

Mr. Bill Walker: As we are debating the RAF, will the hon. Gentleman say what commitments the RAF would no longer have if the Labour party were in government? The hon. Gentleman said that commitments are the problem.

Mr. Rogers: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like listening to the truth, but he should be more patient. He did not interrupt the Minister when he said that although it was an RAF debate he wanted to make it a little wider. If I make the debate a little wider, it would be courteous of the hon. Gentleman to sit and listen.
Let us consider some of the specific projects that the Government have been responsible for managing. Let us look at some of the Government's incompetence. About £3 billion has been spent on torpedoes, but they still do not work. The Government have managed the Nimrod project

for eight years and have spent £1 billion, but it has been cancelled. We shall now have to find £1 billion to replace it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): Who originated it?

Mr. Rogers: The Labour Government originated it, but Conservative Governments have been responsible for managing it since 1979. The Government cannot continually duck and say that it is not their responsibility. They must grow up, behave like mature men and accept that they have been in office for nine years—nine years too long. It is about time that they started to accept their responsibility.

Mr. Mans: Given that a Labour Government signed the contract for Nimrod, will the hon. Gentleman say at what stage since 1979 any Labour party spokesman has said that we should cancel it?

Mr. Rogers: Conservative Members continually want to put the responsibility on us. The Conservative party has been in government for nine years. Conservative Members should accept their responsibility, accept that they have made a mess of defence and behave like grown men.
The Government have spent £650 million on the Foxhunter radar, but it still cannot do the job. The battlefield artillery target engagement system—BATES —has doubled in cost, to £200 million, but it still does not work. The command and control system for frigates, CACS 4, has been cancelled, and £30 million has gone down the drain. The SP 70 howitzer cost £88 million, but that has all gone down the drain.
The list is long. The Government put forward the proposition that they are good at managing defence, but those projects show that not only are they bad at policy, but lousy at management as well.
I turn now to some specific RAF projects. With regard to the European fighter aircraft, during a debate the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) described the Turin agreement on EFA as a "major milestone" in the re-equipment programme. He described the efforts of the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley, as, "a tremendous political achievement."
They have both gone. Seemingly, so has the political will and desire to reach the next milestone in this marathon venture. Indeed, the project does not seem to have reached the first hurdle. Why is that? Mismanagement? Lack of money? Different requirements? Why has there been a deafening silence from the Government as to the exact status of this project? We can discover information only from the Germans. At least they are not obsessed with secrecy — unlike this Government. The Germans are being honest about the difficulties involved, but this Government are hiding behind them. They are using them as a convenient scapegoat. The well-respected magazine Jane's Defence Weekly of 16 January said:
The Ministry of Defence is surprisingly philosophical about West Germany's vacillation.
The Ministry of Defence and the Government are surprisingly philosophical about 40,000 jobs and the future of our military aviation industry.

Mr. Jack: rose— —

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.
The aeroplane should not only be well into its development by now, but its radar suite should have been ordered. I note that the Minister is not prepared to say anything about that matter. It is a serious delay that might do for EFA what Foxhunter is doing for the Tornado.
When tenders are received, will the Minister ensure that EFA has a European radar that is not subject to United States' extra-territorial restrictions? EFA is vital to our air forces on the central front in the 1990s and beyond.

Mr. Jack: rose— —

Mr. Atkins: Give way.

Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) wants to participate in the debate he should take his feet off the Bench and sit on the Back Benches, where he can catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Meanwhile, he should be quiet.
A number of experts have told me that no existing aircraft can fulfil our need and requirement to combat the Soviet threat. Indian pilots who have flown the F16 and MiG 29 paint an alarming picture of Russian superiority, which probably accounts for the Indian Government's decision to buy MiGs.

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had read the Offical Report over the past few months, he would have seen a series of parliamentary questions from Conservative Members eliciting a stream of information about the EFA. If he were to quote less selectively from the article in Jane's Defence Weekly, he would note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has written to Members participating in the project urging them to continue their commitment to it.

Mr. O'Neill: Big deal.

Mr. Rogers: As my hon. Friend says, "Big deal."
Last year we heard exactly the same words from the Minister about the EFA. We are still in that position. The project is no further along the road. Regardless of the answers that are elicited, the fact is that the project is not developing as it should do. The radar suite has still not been ordered, which means that when the plane comes into existence it will not have the radar capability to carry out the job. [Interruption.] Do not tell me that the radar suite has been ordered, because I found out this morning that it has not been ordered. [Interruption.] The tenders may well have been closed, but no Government decision has been made.
In talking about the mismanagement of the Government's defence programme, I come to the "jewel in the crown", the pride of the Government's mismanagement and the peak of their incompetence—the Tucano. What a wonderful non-flying plane! It does not give us any pleasure to catalogue the Government's ineptness in this matter. However, one notices how, in previous debates, Ministers and Conservative Members attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and accused him of scaremongering because he pointed out that plane's obvious deficiencies and queried the reasons for the excessive delays. I am pleased that his perception has been vindicated. My hon. Friend was right—the choice was wrong. There are excessive delays, and there is a cost to the taxpayer.
In both defence debates and questions the Minister has continually reiterated that there is no cost to the taxpayer as a result of the excessive delay over the Tucano. That is

simply not true. There is a cost—the cost of keeping in operation the antique Jet Provost, at a cost of about £10 million every six months. There is also the cost to our pilots and service men, who continually have to patch up, make do and train on those 152 antique Jet Provosts. Those planes have given great service to this country, but are 12 years older than the average pilot being trained on them. This is yet another of the Government's disasters in managing our defence programme.
In last year's debate the Minister said that the Tucano would be received by the RAF last May and that it would be up to squadron level by now. However, as we know, the reality is that no Tucanos are in service and training pilots. The plane has not finished its release for service trials. Indeed, it did not commence them until 8 December. There are still substantial problems, such as fitting the engine into an air frame that cannot take it. Although that problem has been pointed out to the Government, it is still nowhere near being properly resolved.
Will the Minister come clean and tell the House the plain truth? What are they going to do about providing a plane on which our pilots can train in future years? It is significant that the PC9, which was turned down by the Government — one of their brilliant commercial judgments — is in service with the Saudi air force. Indeed, 30 have been delivered in the past year alone. The Government have a disaster on their hands and should do something about it fairly quickly before we have to borrow some planes from the Saudis on which to train our pilots.
At the beginning of the debate the Minister spoke about pilot retention and loss. I do not know where he gets his statistics from. He should sack some of his civil servants for coming up with figures that are wrong, as they did last year and this year. The haemorrhaging of pilots from the RAF is a problem of great concern. In last year's debate, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the Minister said:
It might be helpful if I corrected the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave that this problem is getting worse. Far from it. The latest statistics are good news." —[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1114.]
The Minister then proceeded to give a series of relative figures and percentages which, quite frankly, were as misleading as the figures that he has given today. The truth is that this severe problem is worsening.
Opposition Members have only the most unstinting praise for those who have chosen careers that put them in the front line of defending our freedom. That is why we are concerned that something should be done about our most valuable resources. In 1985, 147 pilots left the Royal Air Force. In 1986 that figure was 175, and in 1987 it was 224. There was a net loss of 49 pilots in the last year alone, with only 175 graduating. I do not know why the Minister gets his figures wrong and gives the House the impression that there is no problem and that things are improving. It is incredible. I do not understand it and I certainly do not believe the Minister's figures. The figures for pilots leaving before they complete their engagements were 58 in 1985, 114 in 1986 and 150 in 1987. This represents a severe problem which the Minister should address and about which he should give some answers to the House.

Mr. Sayeed: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would answer my question, because I genuinely do not know. Do the figures that he has quoted include those who have qualified as pilots, but who have not qualified in further training?

Mr. Rogers: I have included all the figures. They are available for the hon. Gentleman to inspect. Quite honestly, the easiest way for him to get the figures in all their various categories is to get them from the Library. They may well be complex, which is why the Minister can twist them around so easily. The figures are self-evident. There is severe pilot loss, and the Royal Air Force has a severe problem in pilot retention.
There are many problems. I am not very happy about what the Minister said about conventional talks. I am not quite sure what the Government are going to do about the replacement of ground-launch cruise missiles with air-launch cruise missiles. I am not sure to what extent the Government will include dual capability aircraft in the conventional talks. That problem might well need to be addressed in a further debate.
I realise that time is getting on, but I should like to turn to the issue of air-sea rescue. Obviously we are very pleased with the news of the rejection of the privatisation of the air-sea rescue service. However, we would be much more pleased if the Minister could assure us that the capability of the existing facilities will be maintained. Frankly, I think that the statement contained a little humbug—that is if the whole statement was not humbug.
I should like to know why it took so long to consider the project. The Minister said that it was because he wanted to give the matter careful consideration. However, the facts on which he made his decision were available a year ago. Why did the Government sit on the matter for a year? Obviously, they wanted to privatise the service and were trying to find a way to do so. It was only because of pressure from hon. Members of all parties that the Government have made a humiliating climbdown on the issue. They have turned themselves upside down, but they do not have the guts to say so. The Government wanted to privatise, but, as Sir Frank Cooper said, the politics of expediency have triumphed. Twelve months ago the policies of national interest should have led to an immediate rejection of the absurd proposition that was put forward by Bristow—a proposition which, incidentally, undermined the morale of many of our service men who were involved.
Finally, in view of the Government's statement, will the Minister give a real vote of confidence to the air-sea rescue services by providing them with adequate, modern helicopters to carry out their difficult and demanding task, instead of leaving them with 30-year-old Wessex helicopters and quite ancient Sea King helicopters? The air-sea search and rescue teams need such a vote of confidence, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide it.

Mr. Neville Trotter: It is inevitable that when we are debating a service that uses such complex and expensive equipment we should spend most of our time discussing that equipment.
However, I should just like to say a few words about the 93,000 volunteers who give their professional skills to the Royal Air Force. My contacts with other countries have revealed how highly the skill of our Air Force is regarded by our allies.
Earlier in the debate, low flying was mentioned. It is essential to practise the capability of flying low under enemy defences in peace time because it would otherwise be impossible to achieve during war time. The safety

record of our aircrew has been most commendable. When they have to fly low they do so over unpopulated areas, and the recent safety level is the best that has been seen in modern times, with the lowest number of accidents. It is interesting that two thirds of the accidents that inevitably occur in high-performance flying take place not at low levels but when aircraft are high in the sky. We must pay tribute to the skill and professionalism of our pilots and those on the ground who maintain their complex aircraft.
There is no shortage of aircrew in the Air Force. That contrasts with the situation in Europe. I spoke to the Chief of Staff of one of our smaller NATO allies 18 months ago, and he told me that two thirds of his fighter pilots were contemplating leaving the air force to join the civil airlines who were recruiting actively at that time. Fortunately, we do not have a shortage of pilots in the front line, and the reason is that morale is high. That is because life in the Air Force is as good today as it has ever been, and because nine consecutive recommendations from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body have been met in full. That contrasts very much with the situation when the Labour Government were in office.
There is, however, a problem on the horizon because demographic trends show that there will be 25 per cent. fewer young people in each annual age group by the end of the century. That means that there will be a smaller pool of young potential recruits who can be attracted to the services. In particular, the airlines will be competing for those who wish to become pilots. In the years ahead there will be an increasing recruitment problem because of the demographic situation in Britain.
I should like to say a few words about the Air Training Corps, which has 45,000 members. I am sure that all hon. Members are in contact with the squadrons in their constituencies. I am always impressed with the smartness of the cadets and staff at the Whitley Bay and Tynemouth squadrons. One third of all those who serve in the corps join the Air Force and provide a substantial number of the recruits—both officers and men—into the services. I am impressed by the number of girls who are now seeking to join the corps. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister about that. There is such a demand among young ladies wishing to join the cadets that a ceiling has had to be applied; otherwise, there would be insufficient room for boys in the squadrons.
I am delighted that the strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is being built up. It has always been by far the smallest of the three reserve forces. Perhaps we should be thinking about forming an auxiliary air force unit equipped with civilian aircraft in a transport role. Again, I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend about that.
The Select Committee on Transport is surveying the Merchant Navy. As we all know, there has been considerable reduction in the size of all the NATO merchant navies. It seems that, in an emergency, we will have to put greater reliance on the use of air transport to carry cargo. Perhaps we should form auxiliary air force squadrons using those civil aircraft that have considerable cargo capacity.
The air defence of the United Kingdom is of crucial importance to securing our home base in Britain. I shall confine the rest of my remarks to that subject. That absolutely vital task has always been performed so well by the Royal Air Force. The United Kingdom air defence area, as has already been said, covers a vast area, hundreds


of miles out into the western Atlantic and north into the Norwegian sea. In war, the main threat to Britain would undoubtedly come from the air. In peace, on average four long-range Soviet aircraft a week enter our air defence region over the sea, and they are intercepted by our on-duty fighter force. In war, we could expect a large number of enemy aircraft to be directed against us, and, with the long range of modern aircraft, they will be able to approach the United Kingdom from all directions.
In 1979, probably the greatest weakness that the Government inherited was the inadequacy of our air defence forces, having regard to the considerable increase in the potential air threat against Britain. One of the greatest achievements of the Government has been the improvement in the air defence of Britain in past years, and the continuing programme for the years ahead.
Our defence depends on a combination of the capability of the fighter forces, the capability of our radar, the effectiveness of our command and control organisation, and, of course, the survivability of the bases and headquarters in the event of an attack on them.
The Government increased the number of fighter aircraft from the inadequate number that they inherited. In the years ahead, we shall need to maintain our present front-line strength, and I am sure that the Government intend to do that. Their next step was to add 72 Hawk fast-jet trainers in an armed configuration to the fighter capability in a crisis. Detachments of those aircraft are regularly moved to Newcastle airport to provide a close defence of the north-east of the country. The introduction into service of the Tornado fighter is a generation away from the aircraft that it is replacing. Indeed, the Lightning that is going out of service represents a 30-year gap in technology. There is an enormous advance in capability.
The creation of a Tornado fighter base at Leeming is particularly welcome. The geographical spread of our fighter bases in the past has not been as it should be. With the creation of the wing at Leeming we are bridging the gap between Scotland and Lincolnshire, and that makes a great deal of sense. The entry into service of the VC10 tankers and the TriStar tankers has greatly increased the capacity of the tanker force and enabled the fighters to provide a far more capable defence. Through air refuelling they can operate further out from the coasts and stay much longer away on station. An additional squadron of tankers is equivalent to a number of additional squadrons of fighter aircraft, and that increase in our strength is greatly to be welcomed.
There have been great improvements in the strength of our ground radar, and many fixed installations have been brought up to date, complemented by the new mobile radars which can be moved as necessary to meet changing circumstances in a crisis. That huge improvement of ground radar has greatly increased our capability. Without doubt the main improvement in radar coverage of the United Kingdom, however, comes from the Boeing E3 and the AWACS systems. No name has yet been chosen for this aircraft. It is known as the E3A Sentry aircraft in the American services. Perhaps we should be thinking of our own name for such a vital piece of equipment in our Air Force. It provides a great mobility of radar cover and can operate far in advance. It is much more survivable against attack than any group of radar stations. In an emergency, it could be used to plug a gap if a ground station is taken out by enemy action.
It is appropriate to say a few words in praise of the devoted crews of the ancient Shackleton airborne early-warning aircraft, which continue to drone through the skies of the north of Scotland. These aircraft are at least 30 years old. They were not even the last model of Shackleton, and the last model was in service when I was in the RAF—a long time ago. Indeed, 30 years ago I remember flying similar aircraft, and they were then described as 30,000 rivets pulsating in unison. I doubt whether they are any better now than they were 30 years ago. Their capability is very limited compared with modern equipment, but their crews maintain the skills in being until they can transfer to the new Boeings.
I was pleased to hear the announcement that an order for a further AWAC is to be placed, bringing the total up to seven. If there is one message that I want to leave with my hon. Friend the Minister tonight, it is that we need an additional aircraft to bring the total up to eight. With seven aircraft we can just maintain the necessary 24-hour cover that we need over our air defence area, but we must take into account the possibility of losing an aircraft in an accident. The planes will be in service for a long time. The ancient narrow hull of the Shackleton precluded any major change in its equipment, but the AWAC is basically a Boeing 707 with a great deal of room inside and one can expect that over the years major improvements will be incorporated as technology develops. However great the skills of the crews, it must be a possibility that one of the fleet will be lost over a 20 or 30-year life span. If only six aircraft were left, would we be able to maintain the essential cover? I strongly urge my hon. Friend to see whether an eighth aircraft can be added to the order. The dollar has fallen and that must make such a purchase cheaper and slightly more affordable.
There have been enormous improvements in command and control in the air defence environment in Britain, and the implementation of those improvements is most welcome. They provide a great deal of flexibility in command and control, with numerous control centres around the country. It will now be possible from the south of England for controllers to operate fighters nearly 1,000 miles away over the Norwegian sea as easily as if they were in a control centre in the north of Scotland. There will be a much improved capability for co-ordinating operations with neighbouring NATO air and maritime commanders out at sea. That will enable our air defence commanders to deploy defending fighters in the right place, at the right time, in the right quantity, and, in particular, as far forward as possible over the sea so that there will be the maximum number of enemy interceptions and engagements.
The need to engage our attackers as far out from the United Kingdom as possible is greater than ever in an age of ever-increasing long-range land attack missiles launched from aircraft. It is possible that, with the number of attackers that could be expected, some would get through and our airfields would become prime targets. Therefore, I welcome the progress that has been made in hardening facilities at our bases. That is a most noticeable change when one visits stations or passes them in a car.
Efforts have also been made to set up a capability to repair damage to those airfields in an emergency arid to ensure secure communications under attack. I welcome the increase in the number of Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons defending our bases. I hope that we shall


continue to add more Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence squadrons in future because they are a cost-effective way of providing an essential element of our defence.
We can expect that as our own attack capability improves, so will that of our potential opponents. We need to maintain a high standard in our air defences for the future in line with new and developing technology for both defence and attack.
In the next year or two, we must consider where we shall go in the next century. It takes five years to decide what to do and 10 years to bring into production equipment that must then last 20 years. There are exciting prospects in over-the-horizon radars, where a beam is bounced off a layer of the upper air, giving a long range. At present, there are problems with weather conditions, but there is scope for these systems in the future. It is something that we should be looking at. I am sure that all Western countries are considering what can be done in that direction. Similarly, surface wave radar are coming into technological development, where the radar beam can follow the earth's curve, and that has the great advantage of detecting low-flying aircraft which at present would be sheltered by the earth's curve as they approach.
There is a highly classified stealth programme in the United States, which officially refuses to admit that it has any stealth aircraft. Indeed, it is only when, from time to time, a sudden hole appears in the ground as one goes astray that one knows that they exist. I am told, however, that they are not so stealthy that they cannot be seen. They are still visible. However, they are so constructed that their radar signature is only a fraction of that of the present generation of aircraft.
However much the United States seeks to keep that technology hidden, it will eventually become available to those on the other side. The plans will either be stolen or developed. We must accept that, looking ahead to the next century, potential attackers will have such technology. We shall have to look ahead to new forms of detection altogether.
Radar, which has been the main defence sensor for 50 years since the Battle of Britain, may well be replaced in the next 20 years by completely new detectors. One wonders whether heat detection may come into its own by that time. High performance aircraft give out a great deal of heat from their skin surface and it must be possible to detect that form of energy release.
The Tornado fighter is designed to detect enemy aircraft at long range and to fire its missiles at them while still miles away. But there is a clear need now for another type of fighter to complement that capability. In the crowded skies over Europe, it is often not possible to engage an enemy at a distance because too many aircraft are about and it is not possible to distinguish friend from foe miles away in such circumstances. Therefore, there is a need for a fighter that is designed more for its agility than for its long-range capabilities—designed for the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation of a dog fight. The RAF has a clear need for such an aircraft in the 1990s. It is to meet that need that the European fighter aircraft is being brought forward by us and our European allies.
It is not economically practical for the United Kingdom to design and build an aircraft of this nature in the sort of numbers that the RAF will need. The EFA project is an important collaborative programme. It is important

economically, militarily and politically. It is the most cost-effective way of meeting the RAF's needs for the next generation of aircraft. I am pleased that we are making significant progress towards the introduction of the manufacturing phase of that plane.
Our total need and that of our allies for that aircraft is over 700, and the United Kingdom industry will perform one third of the work. Such an aircraft should have a good export potential. There is likely to be a big demand overseas for aircraft with such capability and at such a price.
It is important to obtain from the manufacturers the necessary guarantees for the future, in terms not only of performance but of availability once it is in service. It should be possible to enter into an agreement with the consortium to cover both performance and maintainability.
Thirty years ago, in the infamous 1957 White Paper, the end of manned aircraft was forecast. It is difficult to forecast what the exact nature of the environment in the air will be 30 years from now. However, I remind the House that we must start thinking about it because, as I have said, it takes five years to decide what we want and 10 years to build, with 20 or 30 years in service. The aircraft that are now beginning to come forward will be in service well into the next century, perhaps until about 2030 —rather a horrifying thought for some of us.
Whatever the technological environment and the circumstances in which the RAF will be flying when it enters its century —it is an interesting thought that in another 30 years we shall have a century of the RAF to celebrate—it will still be keeping the peace and deterring aggression as successfully as it is today. It will be in as fine a shape then as it is today, which has never been better in its history.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, because it gives me a chance to refer for the first time since my election to the Royal Air Force base at Leuchars, which lies in my constituency. Leuchars has been an RAF base since 1920. It currently contains some 2,000 service men together with 1,500 dependants. The presence of those service men and dependants contributes richly to the variety of life in the community, and—in another sense of "richly"—to the local economy. The RAF has become well integrated with the community, and relations are generally very cordial. Indeed, so popular is the RAF at Leuchars that last September an air show which was scheduled to attract 10,000 spectators attracted four times that number, with the result that roads were blocked for some 20 miles around.
Like other hon. Members, I was pleased to hear the Minister of State refer to the Government's decision on search and rescue operations. As the Minister will know, a flight of 222 Search and Rescue Squadron is deployed at Leuchars. Like other hon. Members, I was much concerned at the reports that privatisation was being considered. I was not alone in writing to the Minister on the subject. I shall not repeat the arguments that we put to the Government, except to say that a privatised service would be susceptible to industrial action, and possibly to legal action, as a consequence of which equipment might


be seized. Anything of that nature which stood in the way of a proper and effective service would obviously be something to be deplored and avoided.
Self-evidently, the search and rescue services are complementary to other training and necessarily involve the use of equipment already in place. Search and rescue services began at Leuchars in 1956, and since then 1,955 rescues have been performed. In 1986, the number of rescues was 121, and in 1987 it was 114. Notably, 104 of those were what might be described as civil rescues, and only 10 were military. Those figures emphasise that the existing armed services' facilities for search and rescue are also a very important part of the civilan services.
The House, I feel, would not be slow to offer its congratulations not simply to those who perform such responsibilities from Leuchars, but to others all round the country, on the skill, expertise and heroism that they are often required to demonstrate, frequently in association with other rescue services. If I may make another local point, one such association is with the lifeboat stationed at Anstruther and others stationed elsewhere around the country.
What I said about Leuchars is not unique. It is, I believe, typical. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) today drew my attention to the fact that at RAF Boulmer, which lies in his constituency, the same standards of dedication and heroism are frequently displayed.
Low flying has been mentioned, and I should like to say a word about that, and also about training. It is clear that low flying is necessary for the proper training of our pilots; it must be equally clear that, in certain circumtances, it causes inconvenience. On many occasions, it has caused grave concern, and will doubtless continue to do so. It is also clear that where a training squadron is deployed at a base the pattern of activity may change radically because of training requirements.
On 26 November last year, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), met the Secretary of State and, I understand, the Minister who is to wind up the debate. They were very well received, and helpful and constructive discussions took place. At that meeting, I understand that the Government agreed first to consider the use of independent radar checks to ensure that the RAF's own rules are being observed by its pilots; and, secondly, to consider the extent to which some present low flying might, at least in part, be transferred to either the Falkland Islands or Canada. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us the result of that consideration, or at least let us know in some other way after the debate.
The issue of training also embraces that of noise. As must be self-evident, an alteration in the pattern of operations, while it may not increase the intensity of noise, may well increase its frequency. A noise that is tolerable at a certain level when it occurs once, twice or even half a dozen times a day may, at the same intensity, become unacceptable if repeated many more times.
In a written answer to a question that I put down on 12 November 1987, the Minister revealed the amount that had been spent in and around Leuchars on insulation after the arrival of a training squadron. That amount was negligible — £45,000. I urge the Minister to be more flexible. Such payments are essentially discretionary, and thus enable the Minister to take particular account of particular circumstances. Relatively modest sums would

create a disproportionate amount of good will, because those affected by noise find it very disturbing, and sometimes distressing. I do not consider it an overstatement to say that some at least find the quality of their lives affected. The solution is not to suggest that necessary training should be curtailed or abandoned. The solution is to ensure that the effects of such training are alleviated by more flexible provision of grants for insulation or double glazing.
Reference has been made to pay and conditions. Obviously they have an effect on recruitment. They may be even more significant in the retention of skilled personnel, but in considering the retention of skilled personnel we should not concentrate entirely on pilots. Very high levels of skill and expertise are demonstrated throughout all the trades practised in the Royal Air Force, and dissipation or dilution of those skills is obviously regrettable and to be avoided. The issue of pay and conditions should he considered in regard to all ranks and occupations in the RAF, rather than in relation only to the more obvious occupations, such as that of pilot.
Hon. Members have mentioned the European fighter aircraft. Clearly such development, if successful, is to be applauded. I hope that the Government will give as much emphasis as possible to a policy of common procurement. We should not, of course, underestimate the difficulties involved in such a policy, but, equally, we should not underestimate the desirability of its achievement, in both the financial consequences and as a strengthening of political links within Europe. That is something that alliance Members, at least, find highly desirable.
The country needs a robust defence and within that defence it is necessary that the Royal Air Force should play a significant part. For my part, that is a primary consideration. The proper defence of the United Kingdom is a fundamental responsibility of Government. I do not place any less importance on the responsibility of Government to be responsive and flexible when the possibility of disarmament without prejudice to robust defence is made available.
Suggestions made recently, that the Government favour a nuclear stand-off missile to be carried by the Royal Air Force, would seem to put in jeopardy some benefits of the INF treaty. The United States deploys the Patriot missile system, which is conventionally armed and replaced the nuclear-armed Nike Hercules system. If that is good enough for the roles that the United States seeks to fulfil, the Government would be well advised to pause before embarking upon a nuclear system. It seems neither necessary nor desirable to increase reliance on nuclear weapons.
There is no substantive motion before the House, but the House will not find it difficult to express its confidence in the professionalism of the Royal Air Force, to recognise its loyalty and bravery and to express the hope that those important and notable qualities will continue to be exhibited by those who serve in the Royal Air Force on behalf of us all and to whom we have very good reason to be grateful.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on his speech. It was unexceptional in that it told us very little about Liberal party policy on defence, but that is nothing new from the


Opposition Benches because the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who opened the debate, was equally shadowy. As long as the Opposition go on shadow boxing we are not worried; it is when they go into action on the real things that we will be concerned.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Member accept that it is not my function as shadow spokesman to delineate the policies? His party is in government and he ought to be more constructive and comment on his party's policy and the Government's action. The debate is about the Government's custodianship of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Colvin: I agree with two things the hon. Gentleman said: he congratulated the Royal Air Force on its 70th anniversary, and he congratulated Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig on his appointment as Chief of Staff.

Mr. Frank Cook: Let us get to the Tucano.

Mr. Colvin: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the PC9 and I am pleased that it is being sold to the Saudi Arabians.
As a humble member the PBI, I hesitate to take part in a debate about the Royal Air Force, but having once represented a constituency which has a considerable interest in the aerospace industry, I will address most of my remarks to that aspect of the debate.
The debate is timely because, following the Reykjavik summit in October 1986, progress is being made on reducing nuclear arms in the new and very welcome atmosphere of perestroika. However, the more flexible and encouraging attitude of the Soviet Union must not lead us to lower our guard. The move towards INF reduction was achieved by negotiating from a position of strength. That must remain our aim, just as our independent nuclear deterrent will stay as the linchpin of our defence. It is because we follow Churchill's dictum not to let go the atomic weapon until we are sure, and more than sure, that the other means of preserving peace are in our hands that we must continue to maintain and strengthen our conventional defences.
NATO is still the foundation of our defence policy, and 95 per cent. of our defence budget is committed to it. The Royal Air Force makes a very important contribution to NATO's air defence and strike capability on the European central front. It is responsible for the United Kingdom's air defence and provides airlift support to all three services.
The Minister of State referred to the cover the RAF gives to our merchant shipping. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said: I hope that there is a Merchant Navy for it to give cover to in the future. That is a matter of considerable concern to all hon. Members.
The effectiveness of the Royal Air Force in fulfilling its role depends in large part on the equipment with which it is supplied. As 18 per cent. of the total defence budget — some £3·3 billion — will be spent on equipping the Royal Air Force this year, I will speak about the aircraft and aerospace industry. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), the recently appointed Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, attending the debate because he brings to the

Department considerable experience and knowledge of the aerospace industry, which I am sure will be extremely useful, and also a considerable constituency interest.
No one can say that the Government, since their election in 1979, have not given the Royal Air Force the tools to do its job. Major items of equipment have been ordered since our election, and I list some of them: the 82 Tornado GR1s, of which 73 have been delivered—they are the strike attackers; 162 Tornado air defence variants, of which 48 have been delivered; and 62 Harrier GR5s — the big wing Harrier, equivalent to the AV8B in America. We should pay tribute to the United States for having joined Britain in developing that aircraft. In fact, if it had not been for the United States Marine Corps there may not have been a Harrier. We should think about what that would have meant for the outcome of the Falklands operation.
Other items of equipment are: seven AWACs, none of which has been delivered—it is a pity it is not a British product, but the less said about that the better; 15 Phantoms, all of which have been delivered; 18 transport-tanker aircraft, which will have tremendous impact as the force multipliers in keeping aircraft in the air—five of those are TriStars converted from British Airways aircraft; eight support helicopters, all of which have been delivered; 130 basic trainers, which are to come soon; and 25 EH101 helicopters, the successor to the Sea King, which will now be manufactured. Let us hope that Rolls-Royce succeeds in getting the RTM322 engine into that aircraft.
The most impressive equipment programme is the Tornado. There are 600 in service in the United Kingdom, West Germany and Italy — the three partners in the project. Some 809 have been ordered from those three countries, and Germany may require a few more. Together with the Saudi Arabian contract, about which we were all pleased, the total output of the Tornados by the time the programme finishes may be well over 1,000. The Tornado, besides being part of the comprehensive modernisation programme, has provided many jobs in a high-tech industry.
I pay tribute to the British aerospace industry for the application of good design. The technological and engineering skills of its men and women have meant that it has been able to add tenfold to the value of the raw material it uses. That is an added value ratio which, for a country such as the United Kingdom, which is not rich in raw materials, is the sort of industry that we ought to encourage. In fact, 55,000 jobs in the United Kingdom aerospace industry are dependent on the Tornado programme.

Sir Antony Buck: My hon. Friend knows much about these matters and, as he has just said, the Tornado is a remarkable example of the success of British technology. Does he agree that the Harrier probably runs it pretty close? Britain has sold 110 of them initially abroad, which is a remarkable achievement, and the Harrier programme has gone on to be another success. The Harrier is a great achievement in British industry and the programme has had much help from the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Colvin: I agree wholly with my hon. and learned Friend, as I usually do. The Harrier and the Tornado are also examples of inter-country collaboration. Bearing in mind the very high cost of aerospace projects today, I believe that such collaboration is the only practical way forward.
The 55,000 jobs that I have referred to are not all within British Aerospace but are spread across Roll-Royce which produces the engines and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other companies that supply the bits and pieces. As the strike attack Tornado force is completed and the air defence variant becomes operational, we may be tempted to relax a bit. As early as the mid-1990s, however, even some of the Tornados that came into service early might need to be replaced. Certainly all of our Phantom F4 force will have had to go by that time. That is what has led to the biggest ever financial collaboration programme undertaken by a group of NATO allies, the European fighter aircraft. It involves four countries—the United Kingdom, West Germany, Italy and Spain. They have agreed a broad specification for the aircraft in terms of weight, engine thrust and payload. They will share the work, depending upon the number of aircraft that each of them requires.
The United Kingdom will have a 33 per cent. stake in manufacture, because we require 250 aircraft, and West Germany will have exactly the same work share and number of aircraft. Italy will have a 21 per cent. stake because it wants only 150 aircraft. Spain will have a 13 per cent. stake because it wants 100, or perhaps as many as 150 aircraft. We are not sure yet of its requirements. A total of 750 to 800 aircraft will be required for the member countries, who may want more aircraft in due course, and this will bring tremendous export potential.
I should like to put on record the arguments for proceeding with the EFA, which has now reached a crucial stage of decision making. The industry is plagued with acronyms. It is often said that, provided one knows the acronyms used in the aerospace industry, one can find a way around and persuade people that one is very knowledgeable.
It is worth my running through the pedigree of the EFA because it is an important project. It goes back to 1980, when the British, Germans and French together produced the ECA, or the European combat aircraft. That collaboration led in the following year to the United Kingdom proceeding alone with the P110. Perhaps hon. Members will remember the campaign that we mounted at that time to persuade the Government that the project should go ahead.
At the same time the Germans decided to do their own thing, and they produced the TKF-90. Both of these designs were still on paper, and were brought together in 1982 when the ACA, or the agile combat aircraft — I hope that hon. Members are following this—went on the drawing board. At that time, we roped in Italy as an additional partner. That led the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Sir John Nott, to announce at the Farnborough international air show that the EAP, or the experimental aircraft programme as it had been renamed, would come into being.
It is worth quoting from a press release issued at that time. Sir John said that this project was to be
a research experimental aircraft programme which would bring together current component elements of demonstrator work and further advance our knowledge of the demanding technology which will be essential to the high performance requirements now foreseen".
It was not to be a prototype. No one would be designing an aircraft that he thought would be required in 10 years' time, but an aircraft that could give us all the information required to produce, in the light of circumstances and tests,

the sort of aircraft that we needed. The designers were going to look at high agility, more efficient use of composite materials, artificial stability or "fly-by-wire", and stealth techniques that have been mentioned today, as well as advanced cockpit and systems design. A demonstrator model would tell us much about these matters, and provide information useful in developing our STOVL aircraft, the Harrier, and to improve the Tornados already in service. There was much more value in producing a demonstrator model than there could ever be in producing a prototype. In the history of the British aerospace industry, far too many prototypes have finished up on the scrap heap. The Government were right to approach the problem in the way that they did.
Sir John Nott also said at that time that the aircraft would be ready to fly in about three years, and that has happened. Those of us who were at Farnborough two years ago were very impressed at the performance that it put up, and so too have been the 11 pilots who have flown it.
When the EFA first comes into service, it will have the RB- 199 engine, built by Rolls-Royce at Patchway. As production proceeds, the aircraft will need a new engine, the EJ200. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) asked earlier in the debate about the Government's attitude towards that engine. It is probably safe for me to say that the Government, if they go ahead with the EFA, which I am sure they will, will have no alternative but to accept the EJ200 engine as well.
In August 1985 came the real turning point in the EFA programme, with the signing in Turin of the agreement to proceed between the member countries — the United Kingdom, West Germany, Italy and Spain. France had pulled out, although it had been in the programme up to that stage. It was developing its own ideas. It wanted an aircraft that was lighter and more adaptable, and would not have the same capability. Its ACX programme, as it was called at that stage, became the Rafale. The Dassault company proceeded with its manufacture. I believe that that aircraft has now flown.
The EFA is very important for jobs. The employment graph in a British Aerospace or Rolls-Royce factory looks like a cliff edge for 1992, when work on the Tornado programme is due to run down. The EFA could generate as many as 40,000 jobs. That is 15,000 fewer than Tornado because Spain has become an additional partner. But the project will be crucial to our aerospace industry. Employment is a good reason for joining the project, although it is not the only one. It must be the right project for the job, as I am sure it will be. Nevertheless, the project is crucial for our aerospace industry and for maintaining a credible industrial base for our defence systems.
Let us also hope that the radar that will go into the aircraft is British. Some of us have received today a note from the GEC-Marconi Defence Systems company outlining its suggestions for radar in the aircraft. The contract will be worth £1 billion and involve the four-nation consortium. Let us hope that we go ahead with a European radar system rather than an American one. The danger of putting an American radar system into this aircraft is that, when it comes to selling the aircraft to third countries, the Americans can sanitise the radar. In fact, the USA even has the right to veto some of the sales at times. I am not sure that that is good. Let us hope that it is British or European radar in the EFA.
Last summer, Eurofighter, the national EFA partners' joint company, which will develop and build the aircraft, and Eurojet, the company which will develop and build the new engine required, submitted a definition phase report on the European fighter aircraft. This report covered the technical definition of the aircraft, the division of work between the member companies and the proposed programme and estimate of costs. It will be an extremely tightly costed project. Last Sunday, the Sunday Times identified the work already being done by the member companies in this £20 billion project and areas in which economies could be made. They have suggested reductions of about 8 per cent. in the cost of production, worth some £400 million. That is the right attitude towards such a project. Just because the Government are the purchasers, companies should not have the impression that there is a blank cheque, because there is not.
In November 1987, the Ministry of Defence was sufficiently satisfied with progress for approval of the equipment policy committee for EFA developments to be given. However, the final step of approaching the overseas and defence policy committee of the Cabinet awaits international agreement in respect of some aspects of the programme. This is a particularly sensitive issue in West Germany. The West German defence budget is very tight for a number of reasons. First, there is a demographic problem which results in a shortage of military personnel. An increase in conscription in West Germany and an improvement in wage rates did nothing to solve that problem and attract more recruits. Secondly, there has been delay in the updating of their Phantom force. Thirdly, there is the problem of the Luftwaffe's need for additional Tornado aircraft. Finally, there is the launch of a new helicopter, the PAH2. All of these run concurrently with EFA activities.
We are now seeing all the strands of the European fighter aircraft being pulled together in Bonn and I hope that we shall soon receive formal Bundestag approval for the project to go ahead. That is all we now need. Everybody else is happy.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the basis on which he makes that statement? I understand that Herr Wörner is having great difficulty in justifying the expenditure to the West German Cabinet. Will the hon. Gentleman give the source of his information?

Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman must not be such a pessimist. That is the problem with Opposition Members. They run down this country. I am an eternal optimist. I have talked to the representatives of the industry, the West Germans and our other partners and there is every reason for optimism. We are optimistic that, before he leaves to take over Lord Carrington's post at NATO, Herr Wörner will succeed in obtaining approval for the EFA. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we want to see that.
The time scale for the introduction of the EFA to the RAF to replace existing aircraft which will be obsolescent by the mid-1990s is now becoming extremely tight. That is why this matter is so urgent. The aerospace industry has already embarked on certain aspects of the work at its own risk to maintain the programme time scale. We should pay tribute to both British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce and to their shareholders for putting up the money. I question

whether those companies would have been able or willing to do so had they been in the public sector rather than the private sector.
The EFA is vital to NATO and to the RAF if the Warsaw pact air capability is to be contained. It is also essential to maintain close Government and industrial collaboration on air projects in Europe. It is particularly important to the British aircraft industry to get back into the combat aircraft field. We have not developed a high-performance fighter aircraft since the Lightning and, for the past 20 years, this primary field of military export has been left to the Americans and the French. That is not good enough. We need the European fighter aircraft for the RAF and our collaborative partners in NATO. We need the EFA to sustain the technological capability and excellence of our aircraft industry. We need the EFA to be launched soon.
I should like to say a few words about the aerospace industry, which has served the RAF and the nation well over the years. In turnover terms, in the Western world, it is second to only the United States. Its sales exceed those of France and West Germany added together. Its turnover has increased from £2·5 billion in 1977 to almost £9 billion today. Nationalisation took place in 1977. That shotgun marriage may have been necessary. It brought the industry together, but it cost many jobs. The increase between 1977 and 1988 is some 50 per cent. in real terms, allowing for the rate of inflation. About 60 per cent. of the figure relates to military sales and about 40 per cent. to civil sales.
There are problems about the sale of civil aircraft because of the collapse of the dollar. Civil sales are priced in dollars, whereas military sales are quoted in pounds sterling. Sixty per cent. of the output goes for export. By comparison, the United States exports only 20 per cent. of its output. Exports have increased from £1 billion in 1977 to £5·5 billion last year. In real terms, allowing for inflation, that figure has doubled over the past decade and has made a dramatic contribution to our balance of trade. In 1977, we had a £200 million surplus which has increased tenfold to £2,000 million in the past 10 years. That is not bad going.
I wish to speak briefly about the so-called two-way street — the reciprocal sale and purchase of defence hardware—between ourselves and north America. When we came to power, it was about 4:1 in favour of the United States, but it is now only 2:1 in favour of the United States. That shows how we have managed to increase the sales of our hardware in a difficult area. The United States still takes 28 per cent. of our aerospace exports. The Americans have had difficulty with their budget deficit and, during a presidental election year, their Government are unlikely to be making generous decisions in respect of procurement. As a result, some of the contracts that they have signed will be pushed to the Right, but I think they are still safe.
The industry has great productivity achievements. Productivity has more than doubled over the past decade, which has made our aerospace industry competitive. That is why, over the same period, we have managed to increase our share of the world market from only 10 per cent. in the late 1960s to 17 per cent. today. Job prospects are good and will be even better because the industry has good products to sell. When it comes to selling aerospace products, nowhere is more important than the Farnborough international air show. That is the British aerospace industry's major shop window. Britain and her overseas competitors and partners put their aerospace


wares on display at that biannual show at Farnborough. In spite of rising costs, it looks like being a sell-out for 1988, with bookings up 20 per cent. on 1986.
The show is organised by the Society of British Aerospace Companies. The Ministry of Defence is their landlord. The £1·75 million which the Ministry of Defence charges, or is instructed by the Treasury to charge, for the services it provides at Farnborough is a bit steep, particularly when we bear in mind that the Paris air show, the French equivalent which takes place in alternate years, gets the services at Le Bourget airport for nothing. Perhaps we could learn from that.
Rising charges have an effect on participation. British Aerospace, which is undertaking a cost-cutting exercise, is tightening its belt. But I would say to British Aerospace and to other participants in the Farnborough air show that to cut their advertising to save money is like stopping one's watch to save time: it is a short-sighted exercise.
I trust that by the first week in September, when the Farnborough international takes place, all the partners will have agreed to proceed with the vital European fighter aircraft project. I hope that we can get the EFA into service with the RAF by 1995 and start winning a share of the enormous market for that type of aircraft which will open up as the Fl6s in particular need replacement by the year 2000. I am mindful of the staggering fact that the final value of the orders for such a project can be over 10 times the initial value of the aircraft. The advanced fighter market is the single biggest market in the business. There will be a dog fight for orders. I want to see Britain and her EFA partners winning it.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the announcement today on the rescue service. I hope that there is no get-out clause. The Minister spoke of local aspects of the service possibly being under private control. I regret that the issue arose, but it arose, not because the Ministry of Defence said that it was thinking of privatising the service, but because Bristows came knocking rather impertinently on the door and said, "Would you mind privatising the service?" That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed.
I want to focus attention on the air defence of Britain. I shall not try to emulate the boyish enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I shall take a more critical approach to the subject than some Government Back Benchers have done. A great deal of money has been spent on air defence in recent years. The Financial Times recently estimated the total budget for air defence improvements since 1977 at more than £5 billion. If anything, that is an under-estimate, since the 162 air defence Tornados, the seven E3 AWACS and the money down the drain on Nimrod amount to nearly £5 billion on their own.
At its low point in 1970 the RAF's force of interceptor aircraft numbered not more than 120. Most of them were short-range Lightnings, with limited fire-power and a poor maintenance record. Today there are some 270 air defence aircraft in Britain, of which 50 are the latest Tornado F3s costing £20 million each. When the Government have poured another few hundred million pounds into GEC-Marconi's coffers to make the radar work, each aircraft will be able to do the job of several Lightnings.
No one should over-estimate the Tornado's capability. Certainly the RAF does not. When the Tornado was

designed, it was thought that this one aircraft could carry out virtually all combat roles from long-range strike to air defence. But the attempts—comical, if they were not such a waste of public money—to design a plane to satisfy the requirements of all three participating nations soon collapsed, with Britain deciding to go it alone. Shortly afterwards we were told that this wonderful new purpose-built fighter would not be capable of performing the RAF's air defence duties in West Germany.
Then it emerged that the Tornado would not even take over the defence of the United Kingdom for which it was specifically designed. Instead, two of the existing Phantom squadrons had to be retained. Now the original 16 Tornado Mark 2s, most still with concrete where the radar should be, have been withdrawn from service and put into storage at an RAF base in Wales, less than two years after they entered service. When the Minister replies, I hope he can say why more than £300 million worth of weaponry has been languishing in a hangar for the last year. I hope he will tell us what will be done with the aircraft and how much more will be spent on them.
As to the European fighter aircraft, the latest estimate is that they will cost £30 million each. If the history of such projects is anything to go by, it may end up as a jack of all trades and master of none, years late and over budget.
The sorry saga of the airborne early warning system is the second principal area of the Government's enormous spending on United Kingdom air defence. The House knows only too well that £1 billion has been wasted on the Nimrod AEW3, with the subsequent spending of a further £1 billion buying the Boeing AWACS. The main reason for buying these hugely expensive flying radar stations was said to be the need to detect Soviet bombers attacking the United Kingdom at a low level, underneath ground-based radar cover. Yet we now hear that the RAF also intends to buy over-the-horizon radar to be sited around the coastline, also to fill the gaps beneath the ground-based radar coverage. We have heard about over-the-horizon radar for a long time, but there are still many questions to be answered. It is time that the House was given some of the answers. What is the radar for? Where will the stations be built? How much will the programme cost? The antennae are up to 1 mile long and 150 ft high. They will pose environmental problems and electromagnetic radiation will be a potential health hazard. Since Marconi — a name that is always cropping up—will almost certainly be the prime contractor, no doubt another few tens of millions of pounds will be added to our air defence budget.
The third major expansion in our air defences is the revamping of the ground-based radar system, or improved IUKADGE. The history of Britain's radar defences since 1945 has been a sorry tale, with billions of pounds wasted on systems which were obsolete before they were deployed and which would have been virtually useless against air attack.
On current trends IUKADGE looks like repeating the pattern. The first two radars for the new network were due to become operational at Benbecula in the Western Isles and at Buchan in Aberdeenshire in 1983. More than four years later they are still not working fully. The radar station at Buchan, regarded as the most vital one m the country because of its position, continues to rely an a type of radar first introduced more than 30 years ago,


supplemented by a more modern United States radar set which was captured from the Argentines during the Falklands war.
The IUKADGE system will involve mobile radar as well as refurbishing the fixed sites such as Buchan and Benbecula. While cruise missile convoys will soon be a thing of the past, radar convoys will take their place. In addition, there are plans to set up decoy radars and passive electronic sensors around the country. I hope the Minister can tell the House what plans there are for additional sites for decoys and passive electronic sensors, and what the arrangements will be for the deployment of mobile radar convoys in peacetime exercises.
All these developments, together with the hardening of air bases against air attack, are costing the British taxpayer, with some assistance from other NATO countries, more than £5 billion. What is it all for? What is the threat of air attack against Britain? If we are to believe the Government's snow on the boot theory, the Soviet air threat to the United Kingdom has expanded greatly in recent years. Suffice it to say that the RAF's own figures demonstrate what a fallacy that is. On 14 December last the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) said in a written answer that the RAF's interceptions of Soviet military aircraft are now occurring on average only
three or four times each week." —[Official Report, 14 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 412.]
That is a reduction of at least 20 per cent. and possibly as much as 40 per cent. in seven years, yet during this period the RAF's protection capability has increased substantially at mind-boggling cost.
Evidence that the RAF has over inflated the capabilities of the Soviet air force comes from many sources. Back in 1977, journalists attending a press briefing at RAF strike command headquarters at High Wycombe were told:
Royal Air Force crews to date have not intercepted any Tupolev Backfire bombers flying snooper missions, but `expect some soon'.
The Backfire bomber is the great bogey of the 1970s. Its reputed ability to attack Britain from the west was used to justify new radar stations in the Western Isles, Northern Ireland and Cornwall, and a £40 million upgrading of the airfield at Stornoway against the wishes of the local community and the recommendation of a public inquiry. But it went ahead, because the Backfires were about to invade the Western Isles.
Where are they? There is no evidence that they have ever been seen near Britain, more than 10 years after the RAF expected to see them. The furthest south that they have been recorded is off the Lofoten Islands, 1,000 miles away. The number of Soviet aircraft penetrating the United Kingdom air defence region in recent years has been so low that RAF fighter controllers have been having insufficient practice in controlling real interceptions. To compensate for that, the RAF has installed simulators at even the busiest radar stations, Saxa Vord and Buchan, to enable the controllers to keep their hand in when the Russians are not threatening enough.
NATO already has such a superiority in the north-east Atlantic that the Soviets have been increasingly concentrating their resources on defence, not offence. And, as the Americans pursue their highly risky offensive maritime strategy, US naval intelligence officers have been

telling Congress that Soviet activity in the north-east Atlantic has been declining, not increasing, as they pull back their forces to defend their own territory.
Why should Britain be spending a fortune on massively upgrading its air defences? The answer is that the Government have once again caved in to the demands of the Pentagon. The Americans want free protection for their hundreds of nuclear strike aircraft in Britain as payment for the dubious privilege of basing them here. By all means let us have defence against air attack, but this country has poured billions of pounds needlessly into successive generations of over-specified, needlessly complex weapons, largely as an act of gratitude to the Americans, whose military forces make Britain such a target in the first place. What tangled logic this is, from which the principal beneficiaries would appear to be the shareholders of GEC-Marconi and the other contractors in this lucrative industry.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As this is the 70th anniversary year of the Royal Air Force, I offer my gratitude to it for the way in which it has served this country since it was created in 1918.
I want to take a parochial approach to the Royal Air Force this evening. In particular, I want to discuss one air base—Greenham Common—in my constituency. In the course of his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the INF talks. All of us living in and close to Greenham felt that those talks had more importance to our constituency than to any other in the country. They came about as a result of five years of hard negotiation and a great determination by NATO not to be brow-beaten by the Soviets' deployment of SS20 missiles. They came about because NATO stuck to its dual-track approach of bringing cruise and Pershing II missiles to Europe while the USSR persisted in maintaining and building up its SS20 force. The talks came about because NATO was not prepared to allow the Soviets to gain an advantage over it in Western Europe.
In 1983, when the first cruise missiles appeared at RAF Greenham Common, most of us thought that they would remain there for at least a decade, if not longer. So, as we watched RAF Greenham Common being updated from a sleepy standby base for the United States air force to become the active base of the 501st missile wing of the United States air force, we did so in the belief that there was going to be a new generation of nuclear missiles in our part of west Berkshire for as long ahead as any of us could imagine. We watched the old barrack blocks that had fallen into almost complete disuse being refurbished and new facilities being built, including the six huge bombproof shelters in which the missiles were to be stored. We began to accustom ourselves to the antics of the women who had come pledged to prevent cruise's arrival and who succeeded only in creating a false hope in the Soviet mind that Western leaders could be frightened off bringing in Pershing and cruise.
Those same women, who brought with them the promise of preventing the arrival of cruise, succeeded only in bringing a great deal of squalor and hassle for local people, an enormous amount of extra work for local police and huge cost to the local population. They also brought, perhaps most significantly for all our lives, a hideous fence around the base, which was the single ugliest and most ostentatious demonstration that cruise missiles had


arrived—and with them, the women and their tinkers' camp of old vehicles, tents and general mess that the women designate their peace camp and which, in miniature, is still disfiguring the Greenham common.

Mr. Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this country is still supposed to be democratic and that people who want to protest against these missiles, which are deadly and dangerous to them, their families and future generations, should have the right to do so? Is he denying them that right? Is it right that the forces of the British and American Governments at Greenham Common should intimidate and harass those women on every occasion—and zap them, causing them illness?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman talks as if he knew a bit about Greenham common— —

Mr. Cohen: I was there.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Not the base; the common. If he did, he would know that there are byelaws that control the use of the common. They prevent anyone — not only protesters—from camping on it. The people of Newbury have not objected to CND demonstrations that lasted inside a day. They have objected to having this tinkers' camp imposed on them by people who seem determined to ignore the laws of the common which apply to everyone in the country, local people included — and who seem to believe they have some pre-emptive right to maintain their squalid camp regardless of the aggravation and loss of amenity to local people. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to support people who wish to break the law to make their protest, especially as I agree with him so much that in a democracy, unlike what happens behind the iron curtain, we all have the right to demonstrate as long as we do so within the framework of the law.

Mr. Cohen: I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the point about these people's right to peaceful protests — and they have all been peaceful. Have not the Government broken many of those byelaws? Are not the Government before the courts charged under a number of them? Is there not a case at the moment about women who were left in a pit with the troops and police surrounding them, denying them the chance to get out? Is there not a case being brought by the NCCL against the Government and the authorities in that instance? How about the hon. Gentleman applying his diktats to their role in those cases, too?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the law has been broken, those who broke it will be prosecuted. If the byelaws to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not stand up in court, no doubt the judges will tell us so. As yet they have not said so, but that has not in any sense prevented the women from continuing with a camp which has been illegal from the moment that it was first created. Nor has it prevented them from trying in every way they know how to involve those cruise convoys, which go out to Salisbury plain without any missiles in any of the launcher vehicles, in a serious accident, so that in some way the United States forces shall be held responsible for an accident that will not have been of their making but will have been provoked by the women. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman really supports that sort of behaviour, which is against the defence of Western Europe and of our country.
Those women and their protest may have deceived the Soviets briefly — perhaps long enough to make them hold off finally signing the INF treaty — but here we are, five years later, and, thanks to the resolution of the Government and of NATO, we have an INF treaty signed by the President of the United States of America and the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev. I think that all of us should celebrate that fact as one of the most significant acts in terms of reducing nuclear weapons that the world has seen since the first nuclear weapon was created.
The INF treaty still has to be ratified by the United States Senate and the Supreme Soviet, but if we may assume for a moment that both parties will ratify it, between 30 and 90 days after ratification the first Soviet inspectors will be arriving at Greenham Common to examine the cruise missiles stationed there and to set about their task of verifying that those missiles are being dismantled in line with the agreement under the treaty. That means that the Soviet observers should he arriving at Greenham Common some time between May and August of this year. Because they are arriving at a Royal Air Force base, they will be greeted by the RAF commander.
I understand that the Soviets will be allowed to bring five teams of two inspectors and will be permitted, under the treaty, to visit three areas of the base and to inspect any room on the base which could take an object 11 feet long and 21in in diameter. Of course, they will fly in in a Soviet aircraft, and accommodation is being built for the aircrew. I also understand that that team that inspects Greenham Common will make visits to RAF Molesworth by road from Greenham. The visits will be for short periods only to verify where the cruise missiles are kept and that they are gradually being reduced in line with the treaty arrangement.
A fortnight ago I had the good fortune to be invited to RAF Greenham Common by the base commander. I was enabled to follow the route that the Soviet observers will take when they arrive at the airfield. I was shown the three areas to which I have referred and was told that it is expected that the last cruise missile and its support equipment will be leaving Greenham in or about 1992—perhaps the last cruise missiles to be taken out of Western Europe as a result of the INF treaty.

Mr. Harris: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright when he said that for this brief visit accommodation would be built for the Soviet aircrew? What is the justification for building accommodation for a very brief visit? I am puzzled.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The brief visit, as I understand it, will probably last 48 hours. The Soviet aircrew have got to live somewhere, and it was felt to be better that they should live in Portakabins, which are going to be put up for them, than in the barrack blocks currently used by the United States air force.
Then what happens? Three years hence the defence postures of NATO and the Warsaw pact may be very different from what they are today. There may have been further reductions in the nuclear armouries of East and West and their conventional forces may have been scaled down, even though progress in the MBFR talks in Vienna, at the moment at least, are disappointingly slow. All this


is in the future, but the withdrawal of INF missiles, welcome though it is, does not immediately presage a change in NATO's need for vigilance and effective, flexible response. Nor does it suggest that the United States would necessarily wish to alter its dispositions, whether at Greenham or anywhere else in Europe.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that on his visit to Greenham he was told that the last of the ground-launched cruise missiles would be removed by 1992. Did he find out on his visit when the warheads were going to be brought back to be fitted on to the air-launched cruise missiles?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I have here the note that I made at the time of my visit, which may be of some interest to the House. I was told that the missiles will go with their launcher vehicles, and it will probably be a flight of missiles at a time, to the Davies Monthan air force base in Arizona, where they will be met by a Soviet team. Any one missile will be split down the middle and its wings will be taken off—rather like cutting up a bird. Then the bits of the missile will be crushed. The warhead will be immobilised and the guidance system can be removed. What happens after that is not in my remit. The launcher vehicle—not the tractor—will be cut up. So the missile and the launcher vehicle will be destroyed, and the warhead will have its guidance system removed.
I am afraid that I have wandered a bit, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that what I have told him has been of some interest.
As I was saying, there will be a Soviet team in Arizona to meet the missiles when they arrive, and presumably the same situation will exist in the Soviet Union, with American observers waiting for the missiles to arrive there.
NATO has a need to maintain vigilance and effective, flexible response for the foreseeable future. As has been said by so many speakers in the debate already, the air forces of Europe have been and are being updated with new aircraft and, as we know, the air forces of the Eurogroup of NATO intend to bring 200 new combat aircraft into service in 1988. Most of those aircraft will be either the advanced Tornado or F16 types.
The Tornado is proving to be an outstanding European aircraft. It has had its teething troubles, particularly with its Foxhunter radar, and perhaps this is the moment for me to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can say whether the present system is meeting all its specifications and, if not, how soon he thinks it will be able to meet its phase 1 requirements. Perhaps he would also say whether any decision has been made about phase 2.
The European fighter aircraft — due to come into service at the end of this century—is another important addition to NATO's armoury; another generation of aircraft to maintain our defence flexibility. Can my hon. Friend say anything about development expenditure on this aircraft? Has an overall cost been decided with our West German, Italian and Spanish collaborators? Has any fresh approach been made to persuade the French to think again about coming into the project?
I think that all of us have felt for a long time that the more NATO can standardise its equipment the better, although I know that the French prefer to have an observer status in NATO. The recent talks with the French Defence Minister make me hope that perhaps it has been

possible for the French to reconsider their decision to stay outside the project. There are decisions to be made about who builds the airframe, the engine and the radar programme. It is a huge programme, 800 aircraft, and obviously of the greatest importance to the defence of Western Europe, to the effectiveness of the RAF and to our aerospace industry.
I have allowed myself to digress from the subject of RAF Greenham Common, to which I shall now return. It is possible that some of the aircraft to which I have referred will be stationed on airfields in Western Europe. If there is a reduction in conventional forces, presumably some of those forward air bases may be decommissioned. Such decommissioning could lead to a reappraisal of the airfields in the United Kingdom.
I believe that it is generally accepted that the idea of stationing noisy, high-performance aircraft, such as the Tornado, the EFA, the F16 or the F111, at RAF Greenham Common is out of the question because of its proximity — as much as anything — to Newbury and Thatcham — both areas of considerable population. When I asked the American commander at Greenham what he thought would happen to the base when the cruise missiles had gone, he replied, rather enigmatically, that it would be used for an "air force purpose." He did not say —indeed, he may have been unaware of it—that even when the cruise missiles go, three years hence, Soviet observers will still be able to go to the base. They will still be able to visit the three designated areas and to travel to RAF Molesworth. They will be able to do so until 2001 according to article XI of the treaty. That is 13 years hence. Although the agreement affects both Soviet and Western European bases, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the effect that the agreement must have on RAF Greenham Common.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions. What will article XI mean to RAF Greenham Common? If the United States air force decides to give it up as a base, will that mean that, regardless of the use that the RAF might wish to make of that airfield, it could do so only on the basis that Soviet observers could arrive and inspect the three designated areas or any room that could take an object 11 ft long and 21 in in diameter? That right will continue for the next 13 years. Does that mean that, whether the USAF or the RAF are stationed at the base, they must always make allowances for those observers to come, even though the cruise missiles will have been gone for years?
If the RAF wishes to use the base for a different purpose, does it mean that it is still subject to those visits? The Soviet observers have the right to come and look around if they so desire. Therefore, does that not considerably limit the future uses to which the base can be put, bearing in mind that six bomb-proof shelters are in that area for inspection? Does that effectively mean that the base is frozen as regards its future for the next 13 years, or could it be de-activated if it was found to be surplus to requirement? In that case, would the base return to what it once was so many years ago — simply Greenham common? Obviously, those arguments must similarly apply to RAF Molesworth as that base is also included in the INF treaty. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could answer those questions.
During my visit to Greenham common I was taken to inspect one of the shelters. For the first time in the five


years in which cruise missiles have been at Greenham I saw and put my hand on a cannister that contained one. That, in itself, is of no importance to anyone except me.
As I came out of the shelter I spoke to the young airman on guard—he was from the RAF Regiment. In October, I had been to Northern Ireland to see the county regiment into which people from Berkshire and Wiltshire enlist. In the course of talking to those soldiers I was frequently reminded that they were not satisfied with the boots that had been issued to them. They had all sorts of complaints about them, one of which was that they were anything but waterproof. Others said that they did not believe that they were the ideal boot for a soldier. Indeed, one corporal had chosen to go out and buy himself the boots that he was wearing on duty. Hon. Members may ask, "What has this got to do with RAF Greenham Common?" The fact is that when I spoke to that young airman of the RAF Regiment, I asked him about his boots and, to my surprise, he told me that he, too, had bought his own boots. I asked him why, and he told me that general issue boots were too heavy and hurt the Achilles tendons in his heels. In consequence, when on sentry duty, he preferred the boots that he had bought because of their lightness and flexibility, even though they were not very waterproof.
I asked the United States colonel who was accompanying me what he thought about boots and whether his service men were pleased with their boots. He said that the American service men were also rather unhappy about their boots, but that they had got over the problem of waterproofing with over-boots. He showed me a pair of excellent waterproof over-boots. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is one solution to the problem.
Given my present interest in military boots, and as the RAF Regiment wears the same boots as the Army, I was especially interested in an item that appeared in The Times on Monday. That article had the headline:
Army to march in style with 'Rolls-Royce' boot.
I do not know how accurate that report is, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could say whether the Ministry of Defence is considering introducing a new Army boot, which The Times described as a "super boot". Has that new boot been approved? If so, how soon will it be introduced? This is an RAF debate, but will those who serve in the RAF Regiment, along with those in the Army, be receiving the boot in the near future to give them the comfort and protection that the present general issue boot clearly fails to provide?

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to address my remarks to the problem of low-flying aircraft.
My constituency is in rural Wales and it is a particular victim of low-flying aircraft. Because of the low population density of Wales, we have far more such flights than most of mainland Britain. Indeed, I grew up with the problem—I remember from early childhood aircraft flying low over the ground. However, over the decades, and especially in the past few years, the problem of low flying has become worse. The aircraft seem to go faster and faster and fly lower and lower; and there are far more frequent sorties by the RAF.
Unfortunately, low flying makes the news only when there are crashes. Last year in Wales we had two crashes, one in Aberystwyth and one in Builth, with the loss of three lives. It is unfortunate that low flying makes the headlines only when there are such incidents because it

represents a day-to-day torment especially for children and for people working outdoors in my constituency and in other parts of rural Wales.
People complain and over the years before I became a Member of the House I received many complaints. From the reading that I have done in preparation for this debate, I understand that last year the Ministry of Defence received about 5,000 complaints, with about 480 from Members of Parliament, an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year.
So that the House may understand the complaints of the individuals who write to me or to the Ministry. I would like to read extracts from three or four which I received last summer. The Rev. Dr. Patrick Thompson, rector of Brechfa in my constituency, wrote:
I have received a great many complaints from parishioners during the past three days about excessively low-flying aircraft coming over Brechfa… Several of the small children in the village have been terrified, and their mothers have been having to keep them indoors as a result. We would be most grateful if you could raise this matter with the appropriate Minister.
I dare say that during those three days excesses were committed or that Brechfa was a particular victim.
A mother wrote to me:
We sometimes have as many as 10 or more a day; in fine weather, this can go on for days on end … when we're in the garden my son is too frightened to play outside by himself. Lately this intolerable state of affairs has extended to the evening also, sometimes after 7 o'clock when my son has gone to bed.
Can the House imagine what it feels like to be a small child woken from sleep by these screaming monsters? We are used to so much noise in the House that we get a bit hard of hearing, but young children's eardrums are much more sensitive. When they are playing outdoors in the middle of summer, the sudden searing noise of an aircraft terrifies them.
Last August I had a letter from some grandparents which read:
We, who are well used to the 'normal' flying, occasionally are subjected to a terrifying attack. Just such a one happened at 10.25 am today. It is not possible to note the direction etc., the shock is too severe, one is still shaking an hour afterwards. Life is precious. I beg you to do all you can to help us. It is so distressing to see our grandchildren terrorised in this way.
That is the experience of thousands of my constituents and millions of people up and down the country.
I had a letter from some people who have just come to live in my constituency. They live in the rural part inside the special tactical training area, where aircraft are allowed to fly as low as 100 ft. They are absolutely amazed and appalled at the low flying activity in their area. They write:
Flying is continuous on some days and over our property in the valley definitely no more than 100 feet. I am about to have my second child and have been too afraid to go outside the house on a couple of occasions as we have had some aircraft over so low I felt that I would go into labour if outside at the time.
That young mother is so frightened by the aircraft noise that she is afraid she might go into labour if subjected to it.
I hope that those personal examples have brought home to the House the searing and sudden nature of the noise. The aircraft come over suddenly on a quiet summer's day when people are out sunbathing, working or playing. The tranquillity of rural life is shattered within a few seconds and, for young children especially, it is terrifying.
Over the years, I have had the impression that the problem is getting worse, although when one lives with a


problem changes can be almost imperceptible. It was because of complaints such as those that I read to the House that I went with the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) to meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who is here tonight, on 27 October. We put our constituents' complaints to him. He gave us a courteous hearing and was very frank with us. However, he immediately conceded that the problem is getting worse and that the number of sorties has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. He said that in 1979 there had been 85,000 sorties, whereas in 1986 there were 151,000. That represents an 80 per cent. increase in seven years. The number has virtually doubled. The Under-Secretary readily conceded, too, that the aircraft involved are noisier today. The F111, the Jaguar and especially the Tornado are noisier. I contend that, with double the flights and double the noise from each individual aircraft, the nuisance today is three or four times as great as it was 10 years ago.
I have a number of peripheral points to make. Some aircraft are allowed to fly as low as 100 ft. It used to be 250 ft. Apparently, only about 0·5 per cent. of all flights are allowed to fly that low and I accept that figure, but may I ask the Minister for an assurance that it will stay that low? We do not want the figure to creep up imperceptibly.
Flying takes place in the late evening and even at night. In a civilised country that should never be allowed to happen. Apparently, about 5 per cent. of sorties occur in the late evening or during the night. That is absurd. There should be a ban on all night flying.
Pilots must have targets set for them. They need landmarks so that they know which flight path to follow. We have been assured that individual farmhouses are never selected as targets, and that is some relief. However, the landmarks selected tend to be road and rail bridges. There tend to be clusters of houses by such bridges at the bottom of valleys because that is where people choose to build, so targeting brings the aircraft nearer to where people live.
As I said earlier, the nuisance is much greater these days than it was 10 years ago. Since last summer, as part of the public relations exercise of the Ministry of Defence, Members of Parliament have been circulated in advance about low-flying exercises. I last received a circular at the end of January which told me that for four to five hours a day during the periods 8 February to 12 February, 15 February to 19 February and 22 February to 26 February and on 29 February there would be low flying. In other words, as from 8 February there was to be low flying from Monday to Friday every week. That advance warning was addressed to me alone. As it happens, I intended to be in London every week during February.
It would be more useful if the Ministry of Defence extended that exercise to allow local newspapers to carry information in the same way as they carry chemists' rotas, hospital visiting hours and other public information so that the general public can be warned in advance of low-flying exercises. It is no good expecting hon. Members to distribute the Government's information or literature.
How should we counter this increasing nuisance? I concede that we need to train our pilots in low flying, but I wish that the nuisance could be less. As I said, the

nuisance is three or four times greater today than it was 10 years ago. We want to reduce the number of low-flying exercises.
I am told that with the new technology it is possible to simulate flight conditions almost as realistically as those in flight. Surely more exercises could be carried out on simulators.
Reference was made earlier to flights overseas. I understand that exercises take place from bases in Newfoundland and Turkey and that the Ministry of Defence is considering increasing flights from those bases. I can appreciate the cost of those exercises, particularly in Newfoundland, and the climatic problems, but surely Turkey is an attractive option; it is nearer and the weather is no problem. It is a mountainous country and it is far more sparsely populated than any part of Britain. The nuisance would be much less. The Turkish Government would be willing to co-operate in carrying out those exercises because they would attract foreign exchange. I appreciate that they would be more costly, but I understand that the main cost of training is fuel. However, the cost of fuel is the same whether flights take place over Turkey, Wales or mainland Britain.
Turkey has one clear advantage: it is more mountainous than Britain. Therefore, the quality of training would be far better; it would be a more realistic exercise. I should have thought that, in terms of training quality, one hour's flying in Turkey would be worth two hours' flying in Britain. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consider seriously those alternatives to low flying in Britain.
It is certain that the number of low flights has increased. Why has it doubled in the past 10 years? Earlier the Under-Secretary said that the need for low flying is dependent on the perceived threat in central Europe. Does that mean that the perceived threat in 1988 is double what it was in 1978? Since Mr. Gorbachev came to power, there has been talk of detente, the INF treaty and an improvement in relations with the Soviet Union. Therefore, I cannot understand why we need twice as many flights today.
People's attitudes to low flying are changing. In my constituency, demographic change has contributed to that change in attitude as more retired people have moved in. Generally, people today are much more aware of environmental issues and are much more willing to complain. They appreciate the quality of life much more. Today we have a much more discriminating public than we had in the 1950s, 1960s — when the problem first started — and the 1970s. The Ministry of Defence is running out of time and the nuisance is increasing. The public is much more critical. We will have to find a solution to the problem of low flying.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having this opportunity to speak in the debate. As hon. Members will know, my background means that I have a special interest in aviation and, more specifically, in aviation connected with the RAF.
For as long as I can remember, the procurement of military aircraft has been a subject of lively political debate. As long as 30 years ago the debate was raging whether the Lightning would be the last manned fighter aircraft in service. Some 30 years later those Lightings are about to leave active service and are being steadily replaced by the Tornado F3.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning the Foxhunter radar. I sincerely hope, now that we have negotiated a new contract for the updating of that radar, that we have finally got rid of the time and cost over-runs of the past.
There is now a new debate about the replacement for the Jaguar and Phantom aircraft, the European fighter aircraft, which has been mentioned at some length. I shall keep my remarks about that aircraft brief, but it is of particular significance to me and my constituency, which is situated close to where the aircraft will be built.
The EFA is important to NATO and to the RAF. It is important to the north-west of Britain, which I think has the largest concentration of aerospace factories this side of the Atlantic. This concentration is having a tremendously beneficial effect on the north through the spin-off of technology into other more traditional industries, to say nothing of the employment prospects and other wealth-creating prospects that will exist if it goes ahead.
Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), it is not this Government who are holding up the development of the EFA; it is those committees in the Bundestag that have yet to be convinced of its suitability for the roles that have been assigned to it in NATO.
It is true that the Germans are keen to cut the cost, but in cutting the cost we must be careful not to cut the performance envelope of that aircraft, making it little better than an F16 or an F18. We should ensure that the EFA is of the same category and quality as the advanced tactical aircraft, which is currently on the drawing board. We should take advantage of the latest technology—fly by wire, composite materials and stealth technology, which has been so successfully developed in America.
I should like to turn to another major procurement programme that has not been mentioned at length —AWACS. Part of the deal that we signed to procure AWACS was that there would be 130 per cent. worth of offsets—130 per cent. of the value of that aircraft would be in offset purchases in this country. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to give some assurances about how those offset purchases are going. Information that I have been given leads me to believe that there are problems. It may be that Boeing does not always act in the best interests of British subcontractors. That is particularly the case with regard to the procurement of ground equipment, which amounts to £100 million. I ask my hon. Friend to say whether those offsets are coming through, when we can expect a certain percentage of them and when we can expect the full 130 per cent. to be reached.
Apart from new aircraft, another area of importance is the mid-life update of existing aircraft. Undoubtedly, that applies to Tornado. It is increasingly clear that in the years ahead the survivability of manned aircraft over the target will become less and less, until it gets to the point where it is not worth risking one's expensive and slender air assets over an attacked target. Therefore, I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had meetings in France with his opposite number about the development and then procurement of a stand-off weapon for Tornado.
I am not over-bothered about whether we develop it with the French or the Americans. Ideally, in the years ahead, we should look towards a development including both the French and the Americans, because we are rapidly coming to the point in NATO where having two

separate areas of technological excellence on either side of the Atlantic is no longer affordable. Therefore, 1 should like to see that stand-off weapon developed by the Americans, ourselves and the French.
On other procurement programmes, I was also pleased to hear about the Harrier GR5, but I should like my hon. Friend to say whether the problems associated with the nav/attack system of that aircraft have been finally solved. We do not want a repeat of earlier circumstances, where aircraft came into service without properly developed avionics.
Before I leave the topic of procurement, I should like to mention a slightly less fashionable subject. It is all very well to spend many billions of pounds on aircraft hardware, but one essential criterion is that one must know which are one's own and which are the enemy's. In that respect, secondary radar and its development are of primary importance. At the moment NATO has a programme to update its IFF capability, but it is a long way behind what it should be in terms of when the programme should have been initiated. Again, I sincerely hope that that is now under way and that it will provide a better air environment for the Tornados and the EFAs of the future, simply because without it it is much harder to see how those aircraft could be used effectively.
Before I turn to personnel, I should like to speak about management, a subject much mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda — or what he terms "mismanagement". I was fortunate to be able to do a few calculations since the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is noteworthy that he quoted a number of programmes which during this Government's period of office have been cancelled at various stages of their development. If we consider the period 1964 to 1970—I stress that that is a shorter period than the period 1979 to 1987 — we see that the number of cancellations, in financial terms and brought up to today's prices, is more than double the number that has occurred since 1979. Indeed, the TSR2 alone accounts for over £1·5 billion in today's money. Therefore, if there is any mismanagement, it has been in the past. Certainly the record of the present Government in managing our air assets is better than that of their predecessors.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely selective in the dates that he has chosen. Perhaps what he should do is to go back to the record of promotions and cancellations of projects since the war. If he does, he will find a long list of cancellations by successive Tory Governments, through the whole range from the Hawker P1083 thin-wing Hunter, to the Hawker P1121 fighter. Previous Conservative Governments have cancelled an alarming number of programmes.

Mr. Mans: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I was trying to compare one period of office under a Labour Government with a similar period under a Conservative Government to make my point.
I turn now to personnel in the Royal Air Force. There has been a lot of talk, both in the Chamber earlier today and in the newspapers, about the shortage of aircrew. Such shortages, if they have occurred, are liable to get worse, not only because of the demographic changes that were mentioned earlier, but because the market outside the Air Force for pilots is steadily growing and does not look as if it will reduce in the near future.
We must look a little more closely at the statistics, and more specifically at the fast jet pilot statistics. We must also look at the way in which we retain people. At the moment, if someone leaves at the age of 38, which is the option date for most pilots, he receives a gratuity. It is no secret that quite often six months after a pilot has left the Royal Air Force he will be written to by the personnel department of the Ministry of Defence and invited to come back. There is a significance in that six-month gap. After it the pilot keeps his gratuity. At the moment there is no possibility of a pilot who reaches the end of his engagement and who wants to stay on keeping his gratuity. He must leave and then reapply. It does not take a genius to see the administrative inconvenience of that system, and how much better it would be to acknowledge the fact that if we need to retain someone it is much easier to pay the gratuity at the time when the engagement ends and ask him straight away to reapply to rejoin the Air Force. I am convinced that if we adopted that policy our training costs would fall. As has been mentioned, the training costs for a Tornado pilot amount to £3 million. We train just over 200 pilots every year. If we could cut that training cost by just a small percentage, by retaining people at the other end, it would be a lot cheaper for the defence budget.
When one runs short of pilots, one does not tend to see that straight away in the front-line aircraft or on the new aircraft. I have little doubt that the Tornado in Germany and, increasingly, in the United Kingdom will be up to strength with experienced pilots who are fully capable of using its potential. However, in the process I have little doubt that the Phantom force is being denuded of experience. There are many young pilots on the Phantom force, but not many who are experienced. That is just one example of the problems ahead unless we take some drastic action over retention rates.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word about organisation and keeping costs down. We hear about this all the time in the Royal Air Force, but normally it amounts to cutting a particular aircraft procurement programme. I should like to suggest a slightly different approach. We should look closely at the supporting arms in the Royal Air Force to see whether we can continue to justify their cost. Those supporting arms, such as the education branch, or even the medical branch, are expensive in terms of pension arrangements and in terms of the people who actually work in them. I am not suggesting that we get rid of such branches completely, but I do suggest that we look closely at them for savings that will be needed in the future, rather than at our equipment programme and front-line strength.
A small example is the Royal Air Force hospitals. At any time, roughly one third of the hospitals are filled with service patients or their dependants. Another third are filled with National Health Service patients from the locality using the particular specialties of that Royal Air Force hospital. When that happens, there is a transfer of funds from the NHS to the defence budget to cope with it. The other third of bed spaces are taken up on a much more ad hoc basis and there is no transfer of funds so, in a small way, the defence budget is subsidising the National Health Service. All I am saying is that if we are to understand the true cost of our defence, we must come up with arrangements that acknowledge such facts.
Another fact that is very much in the news these days is contracting out. Contracting out, or privatisation as Opposition Members would like to describe it, is a perfectly legitimate way of keeping costs down. It has been highly successful, especially in support command at the flying training stations. However, I should like to add a word of warning, because with contracting out go problems of over-stretch.
At times of tension, during exercises and when there are security alerts, service personnel are required to carry out several functions — guard duties, operation duties and their own jobs. That particular burden is falling on fewer service men as a result of contracting out. That should be recognised. It also has to be recognised that a new method will have to be found to deal with that problem. An obvious method is a partnership between civilian manpower and service manpower in a station. That would provide a much better chance of cutting costs without running into problems of over-stretch.
Finally, I should like to add my congratulations to those offered by the hon. Member for Rhondda and say how nice it is to have for the first time in more than seven years an airman holding the post of Chief of the Defence Staff. I congratulate Sir David Craig on his appointment earlier this week.

Dr. Dafydd Ellis Thomas: The debate has been wide-ranging over such issues as procurement, personnel and policy. I shall not deal with all the issues that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) raised. I shall deal with one aspect that he mentioned—the importance of the aerospace industry and its impact, economically and regionally, on the United Kingdom. I have stressed the importance of that industry for employment in the south-west of England, to the detriment of some other regions. The economy in northeast Wales is dependent on the aerospace industry. Its collaboration on a European level in civil and military aircraft development is crucial to that aspect of our aerospace industry.
I welcome the Minister's statement about search and rescue. That is an important issue to my hon. Friends and I, as we represent mountainous and seaboard constituencies. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) would wish to be associated with my welcome. Hon. Members will have read her recent article in The House Magazine describing in graphic detail the role of the mountain rescue services. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who has RAF Valley in his constituency, will also welcome the Minister's statement. In my constituency there are mountain rescue services in Snowdonia and tremendous voluntary effort goes into the provision of those services. I mention the events of last weekend in my constituency when, tragically, a number of climbers were killed because of a sudden change of weather. I am sure that the House will want to join me in expressing gratitude to the rescue services and to RAF Brawdy, which plays a similar role in the southern part of Snowdonia.
That is the acceptable face of the RAF and the Royal Navy in my constituency. I now turn to the less acceptable face of the services—the environmental impact of low-flying training in that part of Wales. The Minister would be disappointed if he did not hear me speak on that subject because we have corresponded and held regular meetings on it.
I am concerned that the environmental impact of low-flying training is not taken sufficiently seriously by the people who do not have to put up with it. I am pleased that in tonight's debate a number of hon. Members representing Wales and other areas have made that point.
The Minister said at the beginning of the debate that the Ministry of Defence takes all possible steps to limit the disturbance to the public from low flying. The reality is that the current policy of
spreading the disturbance as evenly as possible
is designed to maximise the amount of low flying that can be done, not to reduce the environmental impact. That is publicly intolerable.
That is illustrated by the policy on "avoidance areas". Those are areas around major airports and cities, where military pilots are not allowed to fly below 2,000 ft. Last year, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:
As part of the continuous monitoring of the UKLFS, a programme of reviews of avoidance areas is carried out and changes made when necessary … aimed at spreading low flying more evenly and enhancing flight safety, while at the same time reducing, where possible, the disturbance to those on the ground.
No one could quarrel with that quotation.
Group Captain Alan Bowman, the RAF officer responsible for the operation of the United Kingdom low-flying system, was more frank when speaking to a NATO conference in West Germany in 1986. He said that the Ministry of Defence
strive constantly to reduce the number of avoidance areas to the minimum".
In recent years, several areas which were previously considered too noise sensitive or not suitable for low flying for other reasons have been opened up to low flying. They include substantial areas of Kent and Sussex and the Isles of Wight, Scilly, Orkney and Shetland. Even Northern Ireland is now officially available for low-flying training by helicopters.
The Minister confirmed last November that no consultation took place with local authorities, farming interests or environmental bodies in those areas prior to their designation as low-flying areas, when the MOD decided to increase the maximum speed for low-flying aircraft from 420 to 450 knots. The Minister said:
Nor was such consultation necessary." —[Official Report, 16 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 453–54.]
I must contrast that with the situation in the Federal Republic of Germany, which has attempted to increase the areas available for low flying, but its federal structure allows the individual "lander" to block attempts to impose new low-flying areas. No such control is available in Great Britain. More importantly, the Federal Government actually respond to public pressure to reduce the disturbance from low-flying training. The result is that West Germany has already reached the point where it is unsafe and environmentally impractical to increase the amount of low flying within the present constraints. So it has to export it to places where the regulations are not so tight. That means Britain.
Britain particularly attracts aircraft wanting to fly as low as 100 ft, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has said, aircraft which are involved in night low-level training. In Germany, night flying as low as 100 ft is banned and the night low-level training can take place only down to 1,000 ft above the ground. Last September, the RAF held its Salmond trophy competition—it has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) —

which is a low-level bombing and navigation competition for German-based Tornado squadrons, in eastern England and Scotland. It had been shifted from Germany for environmental reasons, and caused an understandable public outcry, particularly in the north of Scotland.
Officially, the Ministry of Defence's policy is that the United Kingdom low-flying system can be used only by forces based in the United Kingdom, although in addition, according to Group Captain Bowman,
We have agreed that our European allies can carry out limited low flying in the United Kingdom on an exchange basis normally during exercises … we do not accept low flying from other countries as a matter of routine.
The reality is rather different. Britain imports routine low-level training, including types of flying that would not be permitted in Germany. For example, in late 1986, the United States army sent eight UH60 helicopters from a base in West Germany to Salisbury plain. The pilots were in Britain to train for their night low-level qualification which included flying 50 ft above the ground, in darkness, with no navigation or collision warning lights on, and over populated rural areas.
Not surprisingly, the extent of low-level training results in a substantial number of complaints to the Ministry of Defence. I am grateful for the way in which the Department has investigated each complaint with which I have presented it over the years.
According to a parliamentary answer that I received, last year the Ministry of Defence received an all-time record number of 5,695 complaints about low flying. An analysis of the figures shows that there was a higher ratio of complaints per low-flying sortie last year than at any previous time. In the mid-1970s, before the free-for-all system was introduced in 1979, following the last review of low-flying areas, the MOD was receiving about one complaint for every 40 to 50 low-level flights over Britain. As soon as the new system was introduced which permitted low flying all over the mainland of Britain, complaints rose to one for every 27 sorties. Last year it reached the record level of one complaint for every 23 low-flying sorties, during a year when the total number of low-level flights went down slightly.
In Germany, there have been 3,000 or 4,000 complaints about low-level flying each year in recent times—rather less than in Britain. Yet the German Government have been more responsive to public criticism and have scaled back low flying considerably.
It is important to take a considerate approach on low flying within European and NATO countries. I am sure that the people of Turkey would have strong views on the suggestion that we should export low-flying training there. I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that all NATO countries in which low-flying training takes place should take a similar sensitive attitude towards the public who have to suffer low-flying training.
The German Government have been much more sensitive than the United Kingdom Government, perhaps because its environmental movement is stronger because of its system of proportional representation. Whatever the reason, the German Government have shown greater sensitivity to public criticism of low-flying training.
We have had much discussion in recent weeks about civil aircraft safety as a result of near misses, problems with air traffic control, and so on. When Britain was


opened up for low-level flying in 1979, the number of low-level flights almost doubled. The purpose of that change was to allow for the introduction of the Tornado.
Once again, the low-flying system seems to be coming up against its limits. Last year, there were six crashes involving RAF fast jets at low level over Britain. Clearly, as I have told the Minister on several occasions when we have discussed this, our first concern is with the aircrew who are so tragically killed, their families and friends. But our other concern is public safety.
The Ministry of Defence has refused to release official figures on the accident rate of aircraft at low level, but independent analysis shows that the low-level accident rate for fast jets was higher last year than at any time since 1979. Two of those were mid-air collisions, one of them involving two separate aircraft running into each other while flying independently through the Lake District.
Not only do the Government refuse to release accident rate figures which could easily be obtained from its own flight safety computers, but they have been issuing incorrect figures on the safety record of low-level flying.
In 1974 there was the tragic death of a crop-spraying pilot in collision with an RAF Phantom over Norfolk. That provoked a major row at the time and led to changes in safety procedures. More recently, Ministers, in response to questions, have repeated the statement that no civilians have been killed in accidents involving low-flying military aircraft this decade. That is not accurate. In February 1984, a civilian trainee pilot was killed when his Cessna 150 was in collision with a United States Air Force A10 over Norfolk. According to the official accident report, the collision occurred at about 1,000 feet. Low flying is defined by the Ministry of Defence as anything under 2,000 feet. It is important that we should be clear and honest with the public about such tragic instances.
I am concerned about the free-for-all approach in which individual pilots plan the routes that they fly at low levels without reference to any authority. The system is becoming inherently unsafe. Last year's tragic accident rate may well be repeated in future years. Unlike civil airlines, which are constantly under radar control from the ground, military aircraft at low level are not under any form of air traffic control. When a pilot enters a low-flying area, he is not told anything about other aircraft which may be in the area, possibly flying straight towards him at the same height. It is entirely up to his own eyesight and quick navigation to spot other aircraft in time and to take avoiding action.
The situation is now so bad that the director of flight operations at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough has written to the Ministry of Defence expressing his fears about the total absence of air traffic control in the United Kingdom's low-flying system. The director's responsibilities include a great deal of night low-level flying, which is bound to increase over the next few years as the new Harrier GR5 is introduced and as Tornados are given a greater night capability. The idea that pilots, flying in total darkness on instruments, should operate in total ignorance of who else is in the air around them is intolerable for public safety.
The Royal Aircraft Establishment's flight operations chief has suggested the installation of a computerised automatic flight planning system. That would collate the planned routes of all aircraft preparing for low-level

sorties, work out possible conflicts, and tell aircrews to change their routes where necessary. The technology already exists in the Tornado and Jaguar, and will be installed in the Harrier GR5 and Buccaneer. Therefore, it will be possible for such an automatic system to be introduced.
An automatic flight planning system is now being introduced in Germany. Either when the Minister replies or later, in response to what I have said, I should like him to make a commitment that, in the interests of safety, a similar system will be introduced in the United Kingdom as soon as possible.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important RAF debate. I must, first, declare an interest. I am a serving officer in the RAF Volunteer Reserve. I also want to mention the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He is an honorary air commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. He wanted to speak in the debate, but only one of us could be excused from the Committee upstairs and I was the fortunate one.
I join others in congratulating Sir David Craig on his appointment as Chief of the Defence Staff. We are delighted that a light-blue uniform is once again in charge and we are equally delighted that a man who is so capable and highly regarded has been selected for the job.
Earlier in the debate we listened to the Labour party's views on the RAF and defence. In columns 194–95 of the Official Report of 26 January we were led to believe that the official Opposition's position, as articulated by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), is that they do not believe in flexible response because it is not realistic.
The truth of the matter is that the Opposition do not believe in many things. Earlier this evening we heard the real voice of the Labour party on defence—the voice of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). What he said showed that the Opposition do not believe in upgrading or replacing weapons systems. They do not think that it is important that the RAF should survive over the battlefield. More importantly, they do not believe that the RAF should have a stand-off capability.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Let me make it clear that the Opposition have supported the European fighter aircraft. The cost is considerable and we have supported it from the beginning. Before and during the general election we made it clear that we would continue with that project. We have continued to support the modernisation of sensible RAF systems. What we object to is the notion that somehow replacing a hydrogen bomb on a Tornado aircraft with an air-launched nuclear cruise missile is modernisation.

Mr. Walker: Of course it is modernisation. As long as the enemy has the capability—and it has—and if the RAF is to deter, it must be suitably equipped. Again, the Opposition choose to ignore the deterrent role of the RAF. If one goes back to the days of the cancellation of the TSR2, which was mentioned earlier, it is clear that the Labour party's view boils down to opposition, except where a manufacturer in a Labour constituency will get an order. That effectively sums up the Labour party's views on defence. Indeed, it would be true to say that the RAF would still be flying Spitfires and Lancasters if the choice were left to the Labour party.
We are all in agreement on the search and rescue services— the helicopters. We all accept that the RAF and the Royal Navy must retain that capability. Our reasons for that are that the service must have pilots and aircraft that are capable of meeting the needs of tomorrow, which may be a war-time situation.
It is interesting that the Labour party supports search and rescue. That service obviously does a lot of good, which the Labour party recognises, and there is a lot of feeling for that in the constituencies. But why is it not equally supportive of the necessary—indeed, essential—low-flying role? The point that I was trying to make when the right hon. Member for Llanelli intervened was that RAF pilots have to be capable of surviving, not just defending. If they are to attack enemy bases, they must be able to penetrate below the radar screens and survive. They will require a stand-off capability to do that effectively.

Mr. Denzil Davies: rose— —

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
They will also require the capability to fly low and fast. Therefore, it is essential that pilots are trained to the necessary standard. They cannot acquire that skill on the day that war begins.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has pointed out from the Back Benches—and we have agreed from the Front Bench—that the training is needed. The point that we are trying to make is that, in the areas that have to bear the noise, it has increased considerably over the past few years. As my hon. Friends have said, attempts should be made to find other areas to alleviate the burden on rural areas which are suffering, especially in Wales. However, we accept that training is necessary for the safety of pilots and for the defence of the country.

Mr. Frank Cook: Of course.

Mr. Walker: I find this narrow parochialism fascinating. I represent a 2,000-square-mile highlands constituency, where the RAF regularly flies planes low and fast. Anyone who cares to check will see that that is the case. Indeed, we probably have more intensive low-level flying operations than the part of Wales mentioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelli.
I am not being narrow and parochial. I am not suggesting that the low flying should go elsewhere. Of course it should not; it should take place in areas of sparse population, and I represent a constituency that is sparsely populated. I fully expect and endorse— —

Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon Gentleman has said that low flying should go to areas of sparse population. That may he, but west Wales is not sparsely populated; it is quite heavily populated, as are the areas over which the planes fly. We do not object in principle, but we feel that efforts should be made to alleviate the burden.

Mr. Walker: That sums up the attitude beautifully, "Let them fly anywhere, but not in my back yard." It is important that the House and the public should understand that.
I hope that we are looking carefully at the need for proper identification of friend and foe, and for secondary radar capabilities. It is important that we can tell friend from foe. I was pleased to hear that the Foxhunter radar has improved, and delighted that it is moving forward.
Sometimes, people are critical of certain programmes, and I have been critical along with others. However, we should remember that in developing technology —particularly in avionics, electronics and radar—we are always entering new areas. It can be frightfully costly and difficult. The cost difference between 80 and 100 per cent. work-out of a programme can be horrendous. It is also important to recognise that we are always attempting to stretch technology to the point at which we will get the maximum from it.
I welcome the news that we are to have an additional AWACS. However, I endorse the view that we should try to find a way of purchasing a further AWACS, so that we have the correct balance.
The Opposition Front Bench made some play of the Tucano question, suggesting that the only voices of doubt and uncertainty about the purchase were those of Opposition Members. That is not true, as anyone who has studied the matter will realise. I was very hostile to the purchase of the Tucano, and left no one in any doubt about that. However, I have since visited the Tucano factory in Brazil. When I went to see for myself what had happened to the aircraft, I found that it has been substantially redesigned. We are not talking about the Tucano that used to exist. The best example that I can give to hon. Members with a long and lasting interest in aircraft is this: the difference between the Tucano that is going to come into service and the earlier model is like the difference between the Mustang with an Alison engine—which was a very poor aircraft—and the Mustang with a Rolls-Royce-Packard-Merlin engine, which became the most successful long-range fighter aircraft of world war 2. I am very optimistic about the Tucano, and I only hope that the Ministry of Defence will not have to pick up the cost. I feel that Short Brothers and Embrair between them should bear the true costs.
On my recent trip to the Falklands, the service on board the TriStar was unique. The only other time when I have enjoyed service of such a standard was when I was fortunate enough to fly in the presidential service jet in the United States, where I was served in a manner that I had never before experienced. I compliment the crew of the TriStar.
I was pleasantly surprised—that word is important, because the name of the base that I am going to talk about is Mount Pleasant—at the high quality and standard of the buildings, and of the runway and taxiways. I had thought that an airfield built in such a short time would be reminiscent of the airfields built in a comparably short time in the war. However, it is a very fine and well-built base, and I congratulate the RAF and those responsible for its construction.
The ability to use tankers and air-to-air refuelling has enhanced the operations of the RAF in a remarkable and wonderful way, which means that fewer aircraft can carry out many more sorties much more effectively.
I also had the good fortune to visit the Harriers in Belize. I was very impressed by the morale of the forces, the use of the Harriers and the way in which local people never complained about the noise that the Harriers made. No matter how low the planes flew, the people welcomed them. That is because they see a real threat, not an imagined one. No one is saying, "It is 40 years since anything troubled us in Western Europe; perhaps we can do away with this". In Belize, they know that the enemy is just over the border, and they have never doubted the


enemy's views. The enemy wants to take over Belize, and the presence of the Harriers is very welcome. I met that feeling at every level.
I have a special affection for the reserve and auxiliary forces, and I should like my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to give sensible and serious consideration to how we can enlarge our capability in that regard. It is interesting to reflect that we have been saving money by converging support roles on bases, and we have been using what the Opposition would call a privatised structure to achieve that. I remind my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that immediately after the war we had volunteer reserve bases. Those units were manned by people who worked for organisations such as Airwork, but all the instructors were members of the reserve forces. They were all there to be used at any time when the RAF required them. We should look at that much more carefully.
We should also look carefully at the circumstances in which individuals leave the service at any of the break points up to the age of 38, and find a proper, fulfilling function for them, with a proper reserve commitment. I know that we use a number of them in air experience flights with the Chipmunks, and they do a splendid job. I hope that the Chipmunk operations will continue for as long as Chipmunks can fly — and, given the way that they are flying, it looks as though they will fly for a long time.
The cadet forces are often forgotten, but they are the natural source of the best material for the RAF. There are 35,000, or perhaps 45,000, cadets, the squadrons, the 27 volunteer gliding schools and the central gliding schools. I ask one question about the central gliding schools: when can we expect to see replacement winches?
I wish to say thank you to Wing Commander Paddy Gilmer, a gentleman who has given many years of service and who is to retire this year. He is retiring for a second time, because he retired from the regular Air Force to take up his appointment at Headquarters Air Cadets to look after the interests of the gliding schools and air experience flights. He took over at a time when morale was low and things were very bad. Largely due to Paddy Gilmer's inspired leadership, the position has changed dramatically and today morale is very high. I hope that he has a long, healthy and wealthy retirement.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to the concern felt about the dog-training unit at Newton. Two attempts have been made to work out a system of marrying the Army and RAF dog-training capabilities and on both occasions it was decided that RAF Newton would be the best venue. A third review is going on. I hope that something will be done about this soon because it creates a lot of uncertainty. It would be sensible to amalgamate the unit at Newton, as has been twice recommended.
One aspect for which the Royal Air Force often gets very little credit, although it has done a splendid job, is YTS. The Royal Air Force has always been open to people from all walks of life. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who opened the debate for the Opposition, referred to the conversations he has had with me. My fondness for the Royal Air Force is partly because one is judged by one's ability to do the job, not by the way one

speaks or where one has come from. It is important that one is capable of doing the job professionally and effectively.
One of the interesting by-products of YTS is the substantial number of youngsters who would not have been accepted for training by the Royal Air Force because they were considered to be below the standard required, yet, after 12 months in YTS, about one third of them have been accepted for full-time service in the RAF. This is marvellous and I hope that the House will compliment the Royal Air Force on achieving this breakthrough for those young men who may not have been considered up to the standard required by the RAF. Anyone who knows anything of the RAF knows that, whatever job one does, it must be done to a very high standard.
Reference has been made to the problem of retention when a break point in the engagement is reached. The problem is not new; it has always been there when civil airlines are short of people. The civil airlines, which do not train people and often make no investment in training, want Royal Air Force people, particularly aircrew. They try to entice them away from the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy.
I believe that there are ways of finding answers to problems. One way of retaining the young men on whom we have spent a lot of money to train in various jobs, whether pilots or ground crew, and of encouraging them to remain in the service after they have reached the break point at eight, 12 or 22 years, is by giving them a lump sum greater than the lump sum they would get if they were to leave. They would have a substantial sum to invest, which would encourage them to stay, because people who join the Air Force to fly do so because they love flying. They love the service and the flying and they do not want to go outside because they want a stable home for their family. We should give them a lump sum. I am not talking of £1,000; I am talking of tens of thousands of pounds, because it costs millions of pounds to train chaps up to standard. That money should be invested to keep the chaps in the service. More importantly, they would be able to provide a stable home for their families. They would not have to commute their pensions, as many of them do, to provide a family home. Serious consideration should be given to that.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will bear in mind that, in order to keep families happy, married quarters should be kept in good condition. If families are happy, the chaps are happy. If the chaps are unhappy, it is because their families are unhappy, and they are more likely to leave and to give trouble.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) began his 20-minute dissertation with a most unworthy attempt to vilify the Labour party's attitude to defence. There is no way that the hon. Member can question my commitment or the commitment of the Labour party to the defence of the country. I counsel him in future not to be quite so gratuitously offensive. The role of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition is to question the Government on the basis of facts, and that is precisely what we have been trying to do, as opposed to the blather that has been emanating from the Government Benches.
Before the ink was dry on the INF treaty the Prime Minister had declared her intention to Mr. Dimbleby on


television in December to proceed with a fresh escalation of the arms race with a brand new air-launched missile for the RAF. The missiles will have a range of about 400 km, giving the Tornado a similar range to the ground-launched missiles at Greenham.
If those weapons are fitted to the 200 Tornado fighter bombers, which carry an average of two missiles each, we would end up with 400 long-range air-launched nuclear missiles, compared with the 160 ground-launched missiles that will leave Greenham and Molesworth under the INF treaty, not counting the United States missiles at RAF bases in Britain. This would represent a major escalation of capability. That is an undeniable fact. Those weapons are not a modernisation of old weapons; they represent a new type of weapon which NATO has not deployed before.
If we are to maintain a balance, the Minister should tell the House which types of weapons the Soviets are developing, as neither the International Institute for Strategic Studies' "Military Balance" nor the Pentagon's "Soviet Military Power" makes any mention of such weapons being designed to equip Soviet tactical aircraft or even being in development. The argument for those weapons is that we must be able to penetrate Soviet air defences, but after Mathias Rust's flight the RAF would be better advised to buy the much cheaper high-winged, low-flying Cessna than the cruise missile.
The USSR and the United States have had large, heavy and often inaccurate air-launched cruise missiles on long-range bombers for many years, but the proliferation of small, highly accurate nuclear missiles for fighters is a unilateral escalation and should be acknowledged as such without any equivocation or ambiguity.
On 26 January the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) that he was not aware of any United States plans to base air-launched cruise missiles in Europe in the future. That was a very misleading statement. Was he deceiving himself in misleading the House, or did he mislead the House honestly? The United States, according to testimony to Congress from Secretary of Defence Carlucci, is making development of a nuclear tactical air-to-surface missile an "urgent priority" within the framework agreed four years ago at the Montebello nuclear planning group meeting. He says that the missile
is a development programme to provide both US and Allied dual capable aircraft … with the capability to attack high value heavily defended targets throughout the theatre.
There can be no doubt that these missiles will employ cruise technology. There are two candidates already for the system. The first is the United States joint tactical missile system, which, according to United States sources, is already flying. This is a cruise missile with stealth technology. The second missile is the modular stand-off weapon, the MSOW. It is likely that both will be deployed eventually and use cruise technology. Thus, it is clear that the United States is developing nuclear air-launched cruise missiles for deployment in Europe according to NATO decisions, to which the Government were party.
For the Secretary of State for Defence to say that he is unaware of such plans means that he is not doing his job. He is not reading the papers in his ministerial box. Equally, if he knew about this, he has misled the House. If he did not know, he is guilty of neglect. There is another explanation, though, which is that his officials are using a false and legalistic definition of air-launched cruise

missiles which deliberately refers to the present existing US air-launched cruise missiles that are carried by B-52 bombers as ALCMs.
The reason for the right hon. Gentleman's fear of using the phrase "cruise missile" is that it is well known to the public. The right hon. Gentleman would prefer to call them "stand-off" weapons. We have heard that phrase used tonight. Indeed, he would prefer to call them anything other than what they really are. The public think accurately that these are cruise missiles and are an escalation. That view has been confirmed by the Secretary of State in his desire to misinform the House.
I ask the Minister to confirm whether these weapons are indeed part of the NATO programme, Will he say whether they will be fitted to United States F111 and F15 aircraft at RAF bases in the United Kingdom, or is there some hidden opposition to the Prime Minister's nuclear addiction? On the other hand, can the Secretary of State categorically deny that these nuclear air-launched missiles will be in this country? Will he explain precisely his intention and whether he will allow the United States to base more F111s in the United Kingdom and to deploy the new F15E Strike Eagle here? According to Mr. Carlucci, the F15 Strike Eagle can deliver the full range of nuclear and conventional bombs and missiles, and it will be deployed throughout Europe by the early 1990s.
In the recent United States report on nuclear strategy, entitled "Discriminate deterrence" by Kissinger, Brzezinski, ex-Under Secretary of Defence 1kle, and many other military figures, it is made clear that the weapons that the United Kingdom Government want for RAF bombers, which the United States will put on United States planes based in the United Kingdom, are crucial to their plans. The report says:
The Alliance will still need an ability to use nuclear weapons effectively and discriminately.
It continues:
The Alliance should threaten to use nuclear weapons not as a link to a wider and more devastating war—although the risk of escalation would still be there—but mainly as an instrument for denying success to the invading Soviet forces.
Central to these new strategies are the highly accurate cruise missiles that are now in development. According to former Under Secretary Iklé, they add up to
The most important military development since world war 2 … the thirty-year revolution in accuracies has more cumulative impact than the initial leap from conventional explosives to the A-bomb.
The new weapons have revived the ludicrous idea that it is possible to fight a limited nuclear war in Europe; naturally, where else? The idea is still being pursued at the highest level in the United States. Before Conservative Members protest that that is all right because we will act in this insane way only when the Soviets have already gone mad and attacked us, they should ponder the problem of war by accident escalating from a regional crisis or from technical and human error: from cock-up rather than from a conspiracy.
The Royal Air Force is already part of the nonsense of flexible response, which could only promise to add a nuclear defeat to a conventional one. These new weapons will reinforce those obsolete ideas. According to the NATO allied tactical paper 33A, dealing with the deployment of nuclear weapons in tactical air operations
nuclear weapons must be used with discrimination and precision.
The RAF is unfortunately still forced to train according to this nonsense. Ask the inhabitants of Nagasaki and


Hiroshima how much discrimination and precision they recall. Ask the people who were close to Chernobyl and the nuclear fallout how precise that was.
These ideas may constitute a dangerous political strategy of bluff, but they are not a military strategy, for to justify the term "strategy" a military plan must have at least some chance of securing victory, whereas these ideas owe more to the traditions of the charge of the Light Brigade and the mentality of The Sun than to the Battle of Britain.
What is worse about the Government's position is that they have not the remotest real interest in pursuing a policy of arms control and disarmament. The Prime Minister's scuttling style and bullying tactics since the INF deal are manifest testimony to that.
I could continue, as I have many more remarks to make, but I am conscious of the fact that two more hon. Members have been waiting to catch your eye all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to give them the opportunity to speak in the debate.
I plead with the Minister to answer the questions that I have asked tonight. Those that he cannot answer tonight will he answer later in some form of letter to me?

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for curtailing his remarks so that I may speak in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). They laid the ground very well for this most important debate.
My own interest is in future RAF procurement needs. The reason for that is simple. In the middle of my constituency of Fylde is the British Aerospace military aircraft division at Warton. Along with other military aircraft establishments in Lancashire, and the Preston area, Warton accounts for about 16,500 jobs. In addition, we must take into account the contribution by companies such as Lucas Industries at Burnley and Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick.
I pay tribute to the work force in the aerospace industry, both management and trades unions. Their contribution is noted and it does much for the quality of the aerospace industry.
I hope that I can follow in the footsteps of my good friend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He has made many pertinent interventions in debates on aerospace. In last year's debate on this subject he raised 25 per cent. of the questions on the RAF. For his trouble, he is now the Minister with responsibility for aerospace, so I suppose that that says something about parliamentary promotion.
The background to the debate was laid by other hon. Members, but there are three key points underlining the role of the RAF and therefore its future procurement needs.
First, the enhanced role of conventional aircraft has been brought into sharp focus by the INF treaty. Secondly, there is the still real threat of the conventional bomber and, thirdly, the improvement—this is a most important point—in Soviet fighter cover. Today, Soviet fighter cover, such as that accompanying a bomber force,

can reach the west coast of the kingdom for the first time. That raises important questions about future procurement to counter that new threat.
For me, there are three key issues — first, the Tornado mid-life update; secondly, the development of the small, agile, mobile battlefield aircraft, known as SAMBA; and, thirdly, the European fighter aircraft. I should like to add my thanks to Ministers for their efforts in their dealings with the other three partner countries in this project. There may be problems, but it is not for the want of trying that we are now teetering on the brink of getting the project under way.
I should like to ask the Minister when we can expect to see the placing of contracts in respect of the Tornado mid-life update. That is vital to British Aerospace in maintaining continuity of employment in my constituency and my constituents would greatly appreciate some more positive news. SAMBA is a private venture concept which British Aerospace is currently evaluating. Its principal role is the destruction of helicopters, for example, heavily armed helicopters in a German battle situation. It could also be adapted to take on tank formations. That is an interesting concept. It poses some powerful questions about the future role of the helicopter on the battlefield. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
On the European fighter aircraft, we are so near and yet so far. I raise this point, not by way of criticism, but to try to stem the uncertainty which has been circulating in Lancashire, particularly in the local newspapers. Many of the workers are influenced by rumour and I hope that this evening we can quell some of those rumours about the future of the project. I was reminded of the EFA in church on Sunday because, when the vicar was reading the marriage banns, he paid attention to the number of partners he wanted to join together. In the case of the European fighter aircraft, we want to join together four partners. If anybody in the Chamber knows of any good reason why those four partners should not be finally joined together, I challenge him to declare it now. We want to see the marriage fully consummated by the final signing of the full development project.
It is important to restate the operational requirements that the European fighter aircraft will fulfil. We must review the alternatives if something went wrong. We should also consider the implications if the project was stopped. Many people would lose their jobs. We should also consider the role of and justification for the EFA. This can be summed up in a quotation from the November 1987 edition of a magazine called "NATO's Sixteen Nations", which states:
In its current postulated form, EFA should be one of the most effective European combat aircraft ever introduced into service.
There can be no finer plaudit for that project than that simple assessment. The project incorporates new technology in materials, radar and avionics. Its principal role will be to back up the Tornado F3. It will also be able to take on potential enemy bomber forces. It would help to replace the Phantom aircraft in West Germany and to cope with the need for an agile dog fighter. It also has the capability of a ground attack role. That would be of particular value to NATO, particularly in respect of the northern Norway commitment.
The European fighter aircraft project is a great ambassador for the British and European aerospace


industries. Its principal role is to counter the growing threat from the MiG29 — known by its NATO nomenclature of Fulcrum, a fighter not dissimilar to the F18 and the Sukou Flanker, the bomber escort. It can help to counter the renewed threat from the bomber in close-in fighting only by using its agility, speed, weapons system and radar. The EFA is a unique solution to this air defence problem.
It also has a tremendous export potential. I ask one question of Opposition Members: has the Labour party altered the policy published in 1986 dismantling the export machinery for selling British armaments abroad? If that is still its policy—I have not seen anything to counter it—it would be profoundly worrying to aerospace workers, particularly in my constituency, who look to Saudi Arabia, for example, to update its air force by the purchase of the European fighter aircraft.
Without doubt the EFA can meet the challenges of the RAF's specification — agility, a single-seat fighter cheaper than the Tornado which uses state of the art avionics. It has a stealth capability, but it is not so stealthy as to sacrifice performance as a fighter aircraft. Most important, it has the ability for STOL—short take off and landing. In other words, it will not be restricted if runways are damaged. It has the technical capability to do the job.
I should like a clear statement from the Government Front Bench tonight that the F18 fighter is not a realistic alternative for the Germans or for the United Kingdom to consider. The Ministry's own assessment of the capability of the EFA and the F18 show that, while the EFA has an 80 per cent. chance of survival in a dog fight, the F18 or the F18 Hornet 2000—an idea existing only on paper—would stand only a 20 per cent. chance of survival. If that is not a clear reason why all the European partners should proceed at all speed to have the European fighter aircraft, I cannot find another argument. The advanced tactical fighter, a large aeroplane, is not an option for us to consider.
We should ask the Secretary of State for Defence to do all he can in conversation with his West German counterpart to influence the Germans strongly to make an early decision on the project and to make certain that the European fighter aircraft enters service at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage. I shall try to curtail my remarks.
It is a shame that I have so little time because I would have liked to say a lot about the waste of money, particularly in relation to RAF procurement, but many of my hon. Friends have already spoken on that. I shall refer simply to the Foxhunter radar system which is to operate in the Tornado aircraft, which is vital to the Government's military strategy. That aircraft is now known as the Blue Circle jet because it flies not with a Foxhunter radar but with slabs of concrete where the radar should be. That project must be approaching the £1 billion mark; it is almost 100 per cent. over budget. Many of my hon. Friends have already referred to that and to other examples of waste.
I want to concentrate on modernisation, the public relations term used by the Government which the press dutifully repeats. Initially the Secretary of State talked

about compensatory measures in the wake of INF. It might be more appropriate to call it circumvention or, if we wanted to be nasty, even cheating on INF. The Russians call it rearmament. "The Soviet News" of 27 January had the headline, "NATO plans of rearmament". The description by the CND was probably the most appropriate. It referred to renuclearisation — a difficult word to pronounce but a much more valid description than "modernisation".
What is this all about? It is a new technology covering the speed and accuracy of nuclear weapons. The Pentagon's discriminate deterrence report referred to the possibility of a surgical nuclear strike and making the weapons politically usable. In those circumstances, the target would be not only the Soviet Union, although it is the main one, but the Third world. That is a dangerous development and it will make the world a much more dangerous place.
After the INF agreement the Prime Minister said that, in her view, arms control had gone far enough. She wants the opposite of arms control: a new arms build up, potentially leading to a new arms race. We have clearly seen that in the form of the short-range and battlefield nuclear missiles. The Prime Minister sets her face against the third zero in the triple zero option to such an extent that even the West German authorities are now strongly in dispute with her. They do not want such weapons because they know that they will fall on their territory if they are ever used. That is why the Government put great emphasis on the Tornado with new nuclear bombs and missiles, so that it can replace the WE177 free-fall thermonuclear bombs.
There was a possibility of a deal with the French on the ASMP. One could call that, in the words of the light hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the Euro bomb. The Government rubbished it before the election, but are now considering it. One can spot the Tory in the case of the hon. Member for Devonport, or the Owenites in the Tory party — or a bit of both. However, the Government are unlikely to do that deal with the French. They prefer being in bed with the United States, to which they are almost completely subservient in these matters. Also, they want a longer range than the French ASMP has, as a compensatory measure for the scrapping of missiles in the INF agreement.
How much will the replacement of the WE177 cost? The Guardian of 9 February quotes a figure of £2·3 billion. Is that true? If that is included in the Defence Estimates, what will have to go from the Defence Estimates to pay For it? What jobs will have to go? Is this sort of expenditure the real reason why the Government will not — properly—invest a similar amount in the National Health Service, as the Opposition have been demanding for months on end that they should? That article in The Guardian also says that the Government have been working on a replacement for the WE177 at Aldermaston. I have been asking questions about that and receiving evasive answers. Has this work on a new nuclear weapon been going on without parliamentary approval? When did the Government authorise it? We deserve an answer to that.
Then there is the matter of the 1,300 air-launched cruise missiles that, it has been suggested, are likely to arrive by the 1990s. They represent a massive increase in NATO's ability to hit the USSR and the Third world. They would be capable of hitting the same range of targets as their ground-launched counterparts, which went out under the


INF—but with a shorter flight time. Politically, they would be highly provocative, and they come on top of all the other non-RAF nuclear weapons such as Trident, the enhanced radiation neutron bomb, and the MLRS nuclear-capable systems.
It has been suggested that more nuclear bombers will be based in Britain, perhaps at Lakenheath and Upper Heyford. Has the Secretary of State offered RAF Greenham Common and RAF Alconbury as bases for the F111 or its replacement, the F15E Strike Eagle? We are to have all those and the Tornados at RAF Waddington and RAF Marham all over the place, too. Britain will become, and is increasingly becoming, a nuclear battle station. That can only be described as renuclearisation. It is certainly a replacement of those that were scrapped under the INF treaty.
I come back to the points made by Soviet youths because they pose the choice between arms control and arms build up. It is said:
They want to act contrary to the wise English saying that one cannot 'have one's cake and eat it'. The replacement of the systems of nuclear armaments with other ones, more numerous and no less dangerous, is not disarmament. It is a mockery of nuclear arms reduction.
Unless NATO nuclear arming in answer to the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles is prevented, this can lead to a new spiral in the arms race, and undermine the nascent positive process in Soviet-American relations.
I think that that is the case and certainly this new arms build up was never put before the electorate at the last election. The points about politically usable weapons were never put to the British public before the last election and the British people do not want them. If the British people perceived the truth of the matter in this respect, they would see the Prime Minister and the Government for what they really are—nuclear maniacs.

Mr. Rogers: When the Minister was winding-up the defence debate in October he threw across the Table at me one of my election leaflets, on which was written, "This is the only election address Conservative Central Office could find." It was one of the election addresses that I put out dealing with social services. The Minister challenged me—and, of course, it is on record—saying that I had not said anything about defence during my election campaign. I said then, and I reassert now, that I did, particularly in my main election address. Anyway, I thought that I would bring a souvenir for the Minister tonight—the declaration of the result in the Rhondda constituency, which is in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest majority in this Parliament. I think that will demonstrate to him that, defence or no defence, the people of the Rhondda know how to vote.
Each year the debate seems to follow a pattern dictated, it would seem, by the Ministry of Defence's word processor. We have a tour of the world, some fine words about morale, some blood-curdling rhetoric about the Soviet threat and some inaccurate information about equipment—a part of the speech that gets thinner and thinner every year, particularly as Trident takes an ever-increasing share of a decreasing budget. Because of this, of course, we are unable to perform our vital NATO role.
The Opposition contend — as I think we have demonstrated in the debate—that it is not just Trident that is distorting our defence problems, but general mismanagement by the Government.
One of the issues that has not come out in this debate, but to which the Minister could perhaps address himself in his winding-up speech, is the change in Government policy of not publishing project unit costs. I put down a written question to the Minister asking when it became his practice not to publish project unit costs, and the answer that I had from him was that it could be inimical to the commercial interests of manufacturers.
Why is that? The price of a Tornado has no commercial secrecy value. The aircraft is made up of many individually priced parts and there is no commercial value in simply knowing the price of the whole.
Is it true that the policy is brought about by the Government's increasing embarrassment in their procurement role—that it is not secrecy to cover security that we are seeing, but secrecy to hide incompetence? It is not secrecy in the interests of the nation; it is secrecy in the self-interest of the Government and the Tory party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) brought up the acute problem of low flying. He demonstrated to the House the enormous physical impact that a low-flying aircraft has on anyone who happens to be under the flight path. It is an extreme and shattering experience. Although the Minister has addressed himself to this problem on many occasions and answered us with the greatest of courtesy, I hope that he will continue to consider it.
I accept the strictures about the need for training. I have an Army — I had a humble role—rather than an Air Force background, but I cannot accept that there is any skill acquisition from flying at 500 miles an hour at 100 ft. All that happens are knee-jerk reactions. As I have said before, one cannot improve one's reflexes simply by practising in that way. There are other ways to test and improve such reflexes. To repeat what I have said before —indeed, it illustrates the point well—one does not get better at Russian roulette by practising.

Mr. Bill Walker: Pilots do not fly low and fast simply for fun, nor do they do it, the older they get, simply to get a kick. They do it because it is the only way that they will survive in a battlefield environment, and, sadly, there is no substitute for it.

Mr. Rogers: The sad truth of the matter is that many pilots do not even survive peace-time practice and the accident rate is now reaching alarming proportions. I still contend — I will leave it at this— that there is no real skill acquisition in flying at a height of 100 ft at 500 miles an hour. All one can do is practise knee-jerk reactions.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers: No. The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber. We are tight on time and I gave way a considerable number of times during my opening speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned many interesting matters in his speech. He talked about his relief that the search and rescue service had been redeemed. However, both my hon. Friend and I are still disturbed about the "get out" clause that was included in the Minister's statement. I hope that


that matter will be clarified when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate. My hon. Friend is also concerned about the present problems with the Tornado and IUKADGE. There are grave difficulties with our Air Force defence and I hope that the Minister will address himself to them in the relatively short time that he has.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) mentioned his visit to Greenham Common and informed us of his discussions with the United States commander. Apart from giving us a nice dissertation about boots, he did say that the commander had said that the base would be used as an aerodrome. Perhaps the Minister could tell us— —

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I said
for an air force purpose.
That is in the Official Report.

Mr. Rogers: I am sorry. However, my question is still pertinent: whose air force and for what purpose?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made an extremely good contribution to the debate. In common with me, my hon. Friend gets extremely offended at the gratuitous insults that are sometimes thrown from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Frank Cook: It is not all of them; just one of them.

Mr. Rogers: From one or two Conservative Members. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the pattern appears to be that Conservative Members believe that they are the sole custodians of the defence of this country. I have addressed this problem before and would simply ask them to consider the problem themselves. They should remember the record of some members of their party during the 1930s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North made some extremely pertinent points about nuclear deterrence and strategy. I hope that he will not consider me in any way condescending if I say that he has acquired a formidable reputation on nuclear matters, both civil and military, and that his remarks are heeded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to a surgical nuclear strike and demonstrated the absurdity of some of the contemporary discussion of political and military strategy.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made an extremely critical and balanced speech. He addressed the problems as they should be addressed in a debate such as this. He referred to one concern of Opposition Members —the identification of friend and foe system and the incompatibility that is developing within the NATO forces. He also referred to an issue that I mentioned in my opening remarks — the problem of pilot retention, or perhaps I should say pilot loss. He told the Minister that drastic action was needed. The hon. Gentleman preferred to refer to privatisation as contracting out, but properly pointed out the dangers that can arise when there are more civilians than service men in a military unit. The service men then cannot carry out their operating role because they are administering the civilian sector.
The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was concerned about the future of the European fighter aircraft, in which he has a large constituency interest. I am glad that he is joining us in putting pressure on the Government. We are not being negative. We are saying deliberately and clearly that it will not be possible for the Government to fulfil

their nuclear role with Trident and their conventional role within NATO. We may find a severe defence gap developing in the 1990s because of that. Will the Minister tell us whether the EFA is to maintain its dual role as an air interceptor and ground attack plane, or whether the Department has given in to the Treasury and downgraded the specification for the EFA to make it a single role interceptor?
It is well over a year since the Government decided to purchase AWACS, and the matter has been raised yet again today. What is to happen to the Nimrod airframes, of which there are 11? Are they still rotting away at Waddington and Abingdon? Will they be sold or converted to perform a maritime reconnaissance role? Surely the 11 airframes will not be needed for that. Their maintenance is an enormous drain on our defence budget, and, furthermore, they have the capacity to be sold off. The Government are keen on selling off surplus assets in health and so on. How about selling off some surplus assets in the RAF, which could probably realise about £100 million to contribute to the ever-decreasing budget available for defence?
This is my second bite of the cherry this evening. The Minister has been posed an awful lot of questions and I should like to leave him as long as possible to answer the genuine questions and grievances that we have put to him. Opposition Members say that the Government are in severe difficulties and that they will experience even greater difficulties in safeguarding the defence of this country as we move into the 1990s. As Sir Frank Cooper — a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence—has said, the main issues have not been and are not being addressed by the Government. He also mentioned Britain's national role and the problem of an over-full defence programme. Until the Government address those issues they will not fulfil their obligations to this country.
We are anxious to co-operate to obtain maximum security for Britain. We want to safeguard our freedoms and traditions as much as anyone else. I hope that the Minister and other Conservative Members will accept that our commitment to the defence of Britain is at least as strong, if not stronger, than theirs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for giving me a copy of his parliamentary election return, which I read with great interest. I congratulate him on the size of his majority, and I draw attention to the fact that, judging by the return at the bottom, he holds the record in this country for those voting for more than one candidate in a constituency.

Mr. Rogers: People in the Rhondda are extremely generous. Having given me 35,000 votes, they had to give some to the Communists, the SDP, the Tories and Plaid Cymru.

Mr. Freeman: The debate has been good natured, interesting and informative. Many questions have been asked — I counted over 100 — so I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer them all in the time available. I give an undertaking, as I did last year,


that I or one of my colleagues in the Department will write to hon. Members who have raised points that I cannot answer tonight.
We take these single-service debates very seriously, as do the services. The thin attendance for the debate would give a misleading impression to those who look only at the numbers who attend. It is an important debate, many important issues have been raised and the Ministry of Defence very much welcomes it.
I offer the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is hosting an official dinner for a German defence delegation, for not being present.
According to today's Daily Telegraph, Lloyd George told the young Harold Macmillan:
You've no idea how to make a speech. Twenty points make a good speech to which nobody listens … As a junior Minister, you can allow yourself two.
I am afraid that I am about to cover 15 or 20 points, which raises the question, if our proceedings are to be televised, of how television will cover the winding-up speeches.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) mentioned exit rates of pilots, particularly fast-jet pilots. There are three categories of pilot exits. The first category is premature voluntary retirement. I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda understands that the application rates from all pilots — fast-jet pilots, and younger fast-jet pilots specifically — for premature voluntary retirement is down, which is good news. The second category of exit is those who leave at the end of their career. We cannot be blamed for that. The third category is those who reach recognised option points during their career. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that those who signed on for a 12-year commission in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but who had an option to leave after eight years, are now leaving in slightly higher numbers. We regret that, but it is not terribly surprising, because there are great attractions in the civil airlines. However, I advise my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda that the total exit rate for PVR — those who are leaving either at the end or during their engagements—is not excessive. There is no shortage of fast-jet pilots now, nor is one foreseen in the Royal Air Force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) raised the question of gratuities—I apologise to him for not being in the Chamber when he spoke—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre. In the light of recent social security legislation, which requires occupational pension schemes to preserve benefits after two years' service, we are considering whether gratuity earning engagements should continue to be offered in the future, or whether to allow short-service officers and airmen to become members of the armed forces pension scheme from the outset. My hon. Friends will appreciate the significance of that. If those service men become members at the outset, there is no question of paying a cash gratuity at the eight-year point. If they leave at that stage they will have a preserved pension right, but there will not be a cash incentive for pilots to leave. I take that point seriously.

Mr. Bill Walker: I believe that we should consider a positive approach to this problem and pay those officers to stay in the Royal Air Force. It would save the Air Force millions of pounds in training costs if we gave service men

a handsome gratuity to stay in with which they could then buy the houses and all the other things for which they are now using their terminal gratuities.

Mr. Freeman: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. However, the right way to proceed would be to make sure that the pay and allowances for those who continue to serve are continuously looked at and improved where possible. I do not think that a cash gratuity to those who stay in and are retained would be the right way to proceed. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister consider establishing some form of transfer fee? If the pilot or flying technician — call him or her what one will — took up another flying post on leaving the RAF, with another military air force or civil airline, could we not charge something for the training that that pilot had received?

Mr. Freeman: That is an interesting idea, but I do not hold out much hope of making it effective. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a minimum return of service for pilots and, indeed, a quota system for those who, sadly, decide to apply for PVR. We seek to amortise the expensive cost of training pilots. It costs £3 million to train a pilot, and £1 million to train a navigator.
The hon. Member for Rhondda raised the question of Foxhunter, the radar for Tornado. Even in its present form this radar is performing much better than on its first introduction to service. We are confident that its capability will continue to improve as the development progresses. It does not yet meet in full the requirements of the RAF, but radars to an agreed interim standard are now in service and the system is already providing an operational capability that is superior to that of the aircraft that it is replacing. Already two units of Tornado F3, one squadron and the operational conversion unit, have been declared to NATO and a third will be declared shortly.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned EFA and EFA radar. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde to these debates. I feel sure that he will be a great successor, not only to the previous hon. Member for that constituency, but to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who used to carry the flag for EFA and the aerospace industry. We look forward to his contributions in these debates. My hon. Friends asked about the decision on the radar for the European fighter aircraft. Bids for the radar were received last week and are being assessed, but no decision on the radar will be taken before Easter.
The hon. Member for Rhondda also raised the question of the Tucano programme. The first two production Tucano aircraft are currently undergoing flight clearance trials at Boscombe Down. Once those trials have progressed far enough, deliveries to the Royal Air Force will start, although it will be later than was originally planned. Shorts expects to recover any delays later in the delivery programme.

Mr. Rogers: Are the Minister and his Department absolutely satisfied now that the technical problems of shoehorning the engine into the Tucano airframe have been overcome?

Mr. Freeman: With any complicated aircraft — the Tucano is less complicated than the Tornado and the


European fighter aircraft—one can never be 100 per cent. sure. I have made a statement which I believe to be clear and comprehensive, and I am sure that we shall return to the subject at a later date.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether any decision had been made on the future of the 11 airframes. We have recently decided that three of the Nimrod airborne early-warning airframes should be utilised to provide spares for Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. The future of the remaining eight airframes is still under active review.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked some important questions about search and rescue. I am happy briefly to expand on what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said earlier. He explained that where there is a military requirement for search and rescue the service will continue to be provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, whose services will, of course, continue to be made available to the wider civilian community.
Several hon. Members asked me to explain what is meant by a military requirement. I should explain that military search and rescue are the responsibility of Defence Ministers, while my right hon. Friend the Secretay of State for Transport is responsible for civil, marine and aviation search and rescue policy. The military requirement is to rescue military personnel of all three services, in peacetime, transition to war and war itself, on land or sea. To meet that requirement, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters cover most of the United Kingdom coastline and inland mountainous areas, providing a search and rescue service in all those areas where military personnel are likely to be in difficulties throughout the year.
That does not apply in the north of Scotland, where Bristow provides a service at Sumburgh and Stornoway. Military personnel benefit greatly from the dedicated and courageous services of other organisations, such as HM Coastguard, the RNLI, the civil police and civilian mountain rescue organisations.
At the same time, the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopter squadrons gladly make their services available to civilians in trouble. More than 90 per cent. of their call outs are to help civilians. That will continue.
Civilian search and rescue requirements are defined by the helicopter coverage group reporting to the Department of Transport. In some areas the helicopter coverage group would wish to see some improvements. As a result of the deployment studies which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, and which are continuing, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, together with civilian helicopters established in the Shetlands and Hebrides, will provide coverage in future, meeting virtually all the requirements of the helicopter coverage group. I can assure the House that overall coverage will not be diminished. On the contrary it will be enhanced considerably by the military search and rescue helicopters.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: I shall finish my point. These helicopters are subject to study for redeployment and we expect to make an announcement shortly. Coverage is also provided by civilian helicopters, of which there is only Bristow in the north of Scotland.
I recognise that hon. Members would like details of our deployment plans, but I cannot provide those today because our studies are not yet complete. However, we thought it right to put an end to uncertainty and speculation about contractorisation and to set at rest some fears that are understandable but groundless. Where we do not find it necessary to provide military helicopters to meet military search and rescue requirements, but where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport judges that civilian activities require unusually high search and rescue needs, my right hon. Friend may decide to supplement the military service by letting civilian contracts. I must ask the House to accept that that will be so.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: In a moment. The vast bulk of the search and rescue helicopter service will continue to be provided by the much-admired yellow and dark blue helicopters and by their dedicated and courageous crews.

Mr. Wilson: The more the Minister speaks, the more he reintroduces doubts that we thought had been erased. It might be purely a semantic confusion between the military service and the service provided by the military mainly for civilian use. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that no base from which the Ministry of Defence provides a search and rescue service will be privatised? Will he also assure us that there is no area covered by the military service, beyond the areas covered by the two bases which already exist, where the privatised area will encroach, either from those bases, or from other bases which are to be established? In other words, although the principle of privatising the whole service has been rejected—we are pleased about that—we do not want to see a gradual erosion of the Ministry of Defence service, with Bristow's finger going a little deeper into the pie every time it obtains another base, as it has in Stornoway and Shetland.

Mr. Freeman: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's two questions are yes, and yes.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister mentioned military redeployment and said that he may be able to tell us something in the future. Is he in a difficulty because that redeployment might mean a reduction in military needs and demands and he is hoping that that reduction can be made up by civilian operations conducted through the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Freeman: The answer is no. The studies are taking some time. We hope to announce the result shortly, because they involve consultation with different Government Departments. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention to diminish or contract the military cover that is provided. As he knows, some 90 per cent. of those rescued by military helicopters are civilians.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked about low flying. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East talked about radar. He was referring to Skyguard. That is a fire control radar system, normally used in association with Oerlikon guns. The possibility of using a Skyguard system to monitor the heights of low-flying aircraft was the subject of a recent trial. The equipment's potential in that role will not be clear until the


results of the trial have been fully assessed. However, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I and the Ministry of Defence take seriously the evaluation of the trial. If the trial proves that the equipment can be used to monitor the height of low-flying aircraft, it will be so used.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the extent to which we can transfer. He mentioned low-flying training in the Falklands and Canada. Yes, we would like to transfer to many different countries, but it is costly to transport the aircraft and crew, and it clearly reduces our defence capability while the aircraft are away. One must also bear in mind that those countries might also have views on the number of aircraft that they are prepared to take. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is yes. Where possible, we are seeking to increase the amount of low flying done abroad.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the noise compensation scheme at Leuchars. I worked closely with his predecessor and I pay tribute to him for his defence of his constituents' interests. I understood that the noise insulation grant scheme was welcome. If there are problems and the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall be pleased to pursue them. I believe that the grant rate scheme per house is adequate and that it is a widely popular scheme.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen made a thoughtful speech and raised five points. First, he mentioned children being terrified. I take his point, and I give him an undertaking that I shall reflect further on how we can alert and inform children, either through school or through parents, about the effect of low-flying aircraft and the suddenness of the sound. While I regret to say that low-flying training must continue—and the Tornado and the F111 are noisy aircraft—the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point.
The hon. Gentleman was probably mistaken in believing that the problem is not only becoming worse, but will continue to get worse. He was right, however, to draw attention to the fact that, over the past five or 10 years, the number of missions flown at low level has increased. That is historically true. The reasons are simply that our pilots must perfect the technique of flying low. That is a relatively new development, because the introduction of the Soviet radar system is itself relatively new, and that is the reason for pilots having to practise low flying. The Tornado aircraft is now fully in service, and, with the introduction of a new aircraft, such techniques must be practised.
Where the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and where I hope I can help him, is in his view that a plateau has been reached in the number of missions flown. I believe that the hon. Member for Rhondda said that 1987 had seen a small diminution, and the situation will not get worse.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the proportion of flights undertaken at ultra-low level. I cannot give him an assurance that we will stick to the percentage of 0·5 per cent. However, I can say that flights in the centre of Wales, the borders and the north of Scotland are necessary and will always remain a very low proportion of total missions flown. It involves great skill to fly down to 100 ft., and it is done in preparation for training abroad.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a ban on night flying. Night flying forms a very small proportion of the total. Although I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a ban, I can

say that, where possible, crews cease flying at 7 pm. Night flying has to be practised in the summer months, because many missions flown in war would be in the middle of the night, but they try to keep the disturbance to a minimum.
The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point about notification of low-flying exercises, and whether we could do more about notifying the local media. I try to write to hon. Members notifying them not only of general exercises, but specifically when there is going to be activity in ultra-low-flying areas. However, I shall see what else we can do.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy raised a number of points. Let me comment on three or four of them. He talked about our policy on avoidance areas. Since 1979, when the Labour Government changed the low-flying system into one unlike the German system, in which pilots could fly anywhere in Great Britain, apart from the great conurbations and airfields, our policy has been constantly to try to reduce the number of avoidance areas. Sometimes we introduce new avoidance areas—I announced one recently at Quedgeley, a suburb of Gloucester—but our general approach is to reduce the number of such areas. This, I believe, is consistent with the comments by the RAF officer. Our purpose is constantly to spread the burden as widely as possible. I accept that it is an interference.
The hon. Gentleman asked about low flying being exported from Germany back to this country. I am not sure which aircraft he is thinking of. Our own aircraft, belonging to RAF Germany, are part of the Royal Air Force. Sometimes they train in Germany, but they also return to this country: that is legitimate. Only 1 per cent. of all missions are flown by non-RAF and non-United States air force jets, and they are mainly from the European NATO air forces. I consider that a modest proportion, and I do not accept the implication that other European nations are sending all their fast jets here and over-burdening us.
The hon. Gentleman's most important point was about the safety rate. There is no time to go into the subject in depth, but I will say that we take it extremely seriously. The accident rate in 1987 was the lowest for the last decade. Accident rates are expressed in terms of accidents per 10,000 hours of flying. The rate in 1987 was one accident per 30,000 hours flown in military jets. Each mission flown normally lasts for between an hour and an hour and a half. That was a good safety record, despite the sad bunching of accidents in the middle of the year, and the inevitable media interest that has followed.
The hon. Gentleman drew to the attention of the House the fact that only one third of low-flying accidents —sadly, there were 14 or 15 accidents last year—can be attributed to low flying, when technical malfunction or pilot error resulted in a crash. Two thirds of such accidents occur at high level and may involve technical malfunction or other reasons. I am proud of our safety record and hope that it will be maintained.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the civilian pilot who was lost in 1984. I am sorry if I misled him in any way. The statistics prepared are for civilian casualties on the ground, not in the air. There was no intention to mislead him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the RTM322 engine, the Rolls-Royce turbo mecca engine. We have decided that a competition will be held for the supply of production engines for the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter. A


specification is being prepared and we aim to issue tenders and complete the competition as soon as possible. We expect the RTM322 to be a strong contender and we are looking forward to receiving a keenly competitive bid.
My hon. Friend referred to the Farnborough air show and asked whether something could be done about the charges. I should like to think about that and write to him. We would like to be helpful, but we are restrained by Treasury requirements and good housekeeping to ensure that we recover our costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to Greenham Common. Under the terms of the INF agreement Soviet inspection teams will be entitled to visit Greenham Common on a limited number of occasions over 13 years after the entry into force of the treaty, which will be shortly after ratification by the two countries. All treaty-related items will have been removed from the base during the three-year draw-down period.
As for the United Kingdom being a base country, the treaty applies only to cruise missiles and their support facilities at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth, so it places no formal limitations on other forms of activity or use of the base. However, in practice we would have to take into account in our forward planning the fact that for the foreseeable future Soviet inspection teams will be arriving to make inspections at very short notice. I do not expect that a decision on the future use of RAF Greenham Common will be made for some time, but I notice my hon. Friend's comment about the sensitive question of future use, and about aircraft being based at Greenham Common.
My hon. Friend also referred to the boot. Being an Army boot, I am afraid I am unsighted on that and I shall have to write to him. I appreciate the problems. I am afraid that we will never satisfly the Army or the RAF on a new boot, but we will try.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to dog training. This review is the eleventh in the Ministry of Defence under various Governments, as far as I can gather. A decision is expected once our consultants have reported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre referred to the Boeing offset agreement. We are currently evaluating Boeing's first six-monthly report detailing contracts for which it wishes to claim offset credit. There is no reason to believe that Boeing will not meet its obligations under the AWACS offset programme, which will also cover the seventh aircraft. Its only other offset commitment in the United Kingdom, against the purchase of Chinook helicopters, has recently been fulfilled.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asked about air-launched cruise missiles. No decisions have been made on modernisation or changes to the United Kingdom's tactical nuclear capability. As my right hon. Friend has told the House, we are studying the possibilities, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decision has been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde asked about Tornado mid-life updates. This is planned for the early 1990s.
Finally, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked about several issues. I assure him, as I assure the hon. Member for Stockton, North on the free-fall bomb. This is the tactical nuclear weapon for the Royal Air Force. It is most important in bringing our systems up to date. No decisions have been made, but I can assure the House that the RAF will be given the capability to defend the country.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Berkshire Draft Structure Plan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Ryder.]

10 pm

Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your selecting as a subject for debate the Berkshire revised structure plan. It is a matter of importance to my constituents in Wokingham and to the constituents of those of my hon. Friends who represent Berkshire constituencies and who are here tonight to take part in the debate, with your permission. I shall be speaking for all of them in relation to the revised structure plan and the Government's suggestions on it.
The message from Berkshire is clear. Over the six weeks of the consultation period, the county has been making the Government well aware, by many means, of its strong opposition to the proposed 7,000 houses that the inspector has recommended should be added to the substantial growth total already in the draft structure plan proposed by the county council.
Opposition has been expressed to the Government over the vagueness of the new use classes order and how that might apply to the guidance in the structure plan on the amount of development to be permitted for industrial and commercial purposes. We welcome some of the features of the structure plan as it stands.
We are grateful that the rapid rate of housing growth, which has been higher than 5,000 a year, should fall to 3,900 on the Government's suggestion, but we still feel that that is too high, as I shall explain. We welcome the Government's firmness of purpose, as stated in that document, to preserve the strategic gap between settlements, although some of us wonder how much meaning we can place on this when we see the decisions in some recent planning appeal cases, such as the Keep Hatch case, which seem to erode those vital green gaps between settlements.
We obviously welcome the affirmation by the Government that there will be strong support for those areas of Berkshire that are demarked as green belt or areas of outstanding natural beauty. But we are concerned about the pressures that will result on other parts of the county including, especially in my case, the Wokingham district where there is not the same protection because much of the land is not demarked as green belt or as areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We also welcome the Government's genuflection in favour of local discretion in many features of the plan. But we fear that we might yet again reach the position where the Government overrule many of these decisions, which are taken locally and exercise discretion in the best interests of the local community, by making a series of appeal decisions against the wishes of the people of Berkshire and their duly elected representatives. I should be grateful to hear some assurances from the Minister that where the local duly elected representatives exercise their discretion under the plan the Government will give them some backing.
We are considering here local authorities which have done more than their bit to accommodate the very rapid growth in the south-east in general, and Berkshire in particular, in recent years and which have never pursued a Luddite approach. They have accepted much of the growth, perhaps too willingly, and attempted to

accommodate it. But there comes a point at which we must say that enough is enough and that we need a reduction in the growth rate.
I put the case to the Minister on two main grounds. I wish to deal with matters that relate to Berkshire. There are times when one must be selfish because all Berkshire Members are here to represent the interests of our county, to defend what is best about it and to ensure that its future growth and prosperity are based on sound planning. We wish to see the public consultation reflected in the Minister's decisions. The views of the public were canvassed extensively over two long consultation periods by the county council before the decisions were made about the revisions to the draft structure plan. The views of the local communities were entirely clear. They felt that they had had too much growth and they wanted to see a substantial reduction in it.
Many of our councillors have valiantly tried to make good-quality decisions to accommodate some growth and, at the same time, to preserve what is best in the countryside and in our local amenities and facilities. We need some assurances that loyal and hard-working councillors will not always be overridden to the point where they ask themselves why they bother to be councillors at all, if their decisions will always be overridden.
We need to know what Government thinking is on our public services. If we have rapid population growth of the kind that we have had, largely from inward migration, we must accept that there will be tremendous pressure on all kinds of public facilities. The Government have not been too ready to come forward with plans for major increases in public spending. When it comes to the schools budget, or the hospitals budget, we are told that things are difficult.
Why are we faced with growth that we do not want, without the resources to accommodate it properly, when other constituencies would desperately like some of that population growth or even some of those people to stay with them in urban areas which are properly serviced, but which are now contemplating school and hospital closures because there is insufficient demand for those services?
We also wish the Minister to take full account of the importance of the local environment. Berkshire has much beautiful scenery and the characteristic of the county rests upon the clear segregation of village and market town settlements one from another. We are in grave danger not just of the important green gaps between the major settlements being eroded, but of the gaps between the lesser settlements being eroded. The village and market town style will go for ever, to be replaced by one large urban sprawl. For that reason, we oppose it. Much as I like my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), we do not wish to see our two major settlements amalgamated by a continuous urban sprawl.
Last but not least, we are extremely worried about the traffic pressures on the county's roads. The roads were designed for a much smaller resident population than we currently enjoy. If we wish to seek proof of what can happen, in the past 10 years traffic accidents in Berkshire have risen by 13 per cent., whereas elsewhere in the country they have been static or falling. That is evidence enough of the enormous pressures that we now see if we are foolish enough to try to drive to the House from our constituencies at peak time in the morning. It is impossible to make reasonable progress on the M4.
I wish to deal now with the broader national interests. I and many of my hon. Friends greatly welcome the Government's strong initiatives to redevelop the inner cities and to ensure that the prosperity of the country pulsates through the veins up and down the land. That requires that more of the growth, economic prosperity and new investment should take place in the great conurbations of the country, not continuously in the south-east— more especially, in a very narrow part of the south-east.
We wish to help this policy. Sometimes people are unaware of just how great migration has been in this country. Over the past 10 years, the leading conurbations have lost 100,000 people each or, in the case of Glasgow, 135,000. Even London, in the heart of the prosperous south-east, has experienced a net outward migration of 250,000 people. Over that same 10-year period, the south-east has had to absorb 500,000 new people, when it already had relatively full employment and a great deal of prosperity. Accommodating further moves on that scale will make nonsense of the Government's inner-city strategy and will do nothing to spread prosperity across the nation.
A similar imbalance in new housing goes with the migrating patterns. Is the Minister aware that new house building in London has slumped from over 30,000 10 years ago to well under 10,000 in recent years, despite the rebuilding of substantial chunks of docklands? There is evidence that in cities there is plenty of land available if it can be prised out of the public sector which keeps it, magpielike, and will not allow it to be developed.
We do not wish to see Hyde park or St. James's park built on. We would all like to see more parks in the inner cities. But the message is simple: the land is there for parks and for houses. We wish to see the Government's resolve strengthened to make sure that more of the vacant land is used and more pressures are taken off other parts of the country.
Sometimes people say to me, "Yes, but you are trying to rig the market. The market demands more houses in your area." The only reason why the market demands more houses in our area is that the market is completely rigged elsewhere. The planning system clogs development in inner cities, in the north and in many parts of the country. Because the public sector owns so much land and often does not wish to develop it, we have an entirely false market in land which makes it difficult for sites to become available.
Those matters are entirely within the Government's power. We all support a Government who believe in the planning system and that it has to be exercised with discretion and skill so that enterprise and market forces are not totally impeded. The burden of my argument is that the planning system is skewed and is putting far too much pressure on the south-east and not enough on the areas that most need development.
I should like to make many other points, but the Minister said that she would like almost 15 minutes to reply, and I would like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to allow two of my hon. Friends to intervene in this important debate.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for allowing me a few moments to put the case

for my constituency. We in Newbury are affected by the Secretary of State's proposals to the extent of having another 950 houses imposed on us in the Newbury and Thatcham area over and above the houses already agreed by the county council in its review of the structure plan.
The Minister will know that the county council put forward proposals for a further 36,000 houses in Berkshire for the period between now and 1996. In simple terms that means an increase in the county's population of about 100,000. That is an enormous number. Clearly, with those people will have to come the infrastructure of hospitals, roads and all the necessities that human beings need.
I am sad that the Secretary of State did not accept the figures put forward by the county council as probably the most accurate estimate that anyone could make of what is likely to be required for the county. I am even more sad that the Department of the Environment seems to be incapable of accepting that the local authority, representing the people of the county of Berkshire, might not conceivably be able to estimate more effectively and with more sensitivity the requirements of the county than can either the Department itself or the independent panel to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred the review of the structure plan.
I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has said. He has raised questions which require deep answers. I hope the proposals will be reconsidered and that the Secretary of State will recognise that Berkshire has had as much development as any county over the past 25 years and that to allow still more development is to destroy one of the most beautiful of the home counties.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I want to endorse the powerful case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). We in Berkshire feel very let down and sore. We think that the democratic process has been trampled on by the Secretary of State. All the hon. Members who represent constituencies in Berkshire, all the local authorities—parish, district and county—and all the people of Berkshire have recommended one course of action, and it has been completely ignored.
In my constituency, an additional 2,500 houses have been foisted upon us by the Secretary of State, on top of the large increase that we have already reluctantly accepted. That will affect not only the environment—our countryside will be ruined—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, our infrastructure, as there has been no financial provision for roads, schools, hospitals and social services. That will put an unreasonable strain upon us.
There is a wider aspect, too. I have said in previous debates that we are not Luddites. We have accepted more than our share of development, but if we now proceed to allow developers the soft option of building on greenfield sites in the shire county of Berkshire we shall do irreparable damage to our excellent inner-city initiatives and increase the north-south divide.
For those reasons, I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider what I believe are his unsound views on the modifications to the structure plan.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I endorse every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), although I am not so much affected. We do not have the infrastructure or the facilities for roads—particularly roads—and schools, and we shall doubtless feel the effects of the construction in other constituencies.
On several previous occasions major decisions have been overturned by the Secretary of State. I hope that in future the Government will not attempt to overturn local decisions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) for putting forward so clearly the deeply held concerns of many people about development in Berkshire generally and, more specifically, about the modifications that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed to make to the replacement structure plan for Berkshire. I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) is in the Chamber listening to the debate.
Hon. Friends representing Berkshire have spoken in this House previously on the subject of development in Berkshire, and some attended and spoke at the examination in public held in July 1986 into the replacement plan. The views that they have expressed have been very helpful in articulating the strong local support for the county council's proposals to secure a sharp reduction in house building in Berkshire, at preventing urban sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, and at conserving and safeguarding the countryside.
I know that it is not just concern about safeguarding the landscape and environment that causes anxiety to my hon. Friends in Berkshire. There is also genuine concern about the consequences of increasing volumes of traffic and about the demands on, for example, social services, on health provision and education, caused by the pressures of an expanding population.
We recognise and appreciate these concerns. At the same time, however, the Government have the responsibility to consider and take into account the overall levels of population growth and housing demand in the south-east and in the country as a whole, as well as the importance of sustaining and encouraging national economic recovery. To say that is to imply not that Berkshire should be sacrificed to economic expediency but that, in deciding the levels of development appropriate in Berkshire, all these factors have to be weighed.
Therefore, the argument is not all one way. It is not only the county council's views or the views of those at present living in the county that have to be considered, however important these are. My right hon. Friend must take into account all the material factors. My hon. Friends will know that, because of its attractive environment and its economic vitality, there is considerable demand for more housing in Berkshire, and there is a need to consider what the social and economic consequences might be of denying such demand.
These are very difficult issues, but at the end of the day my right hon. Friend has to exercise his judgment in

reaching his decision on structure plan proposals. As part of this process the opportunity is given for representations to be made both in favour of and against the county council's proposals, for selected issues arising from those proposals to be debated at an examination in public and for the panel to make its recommendations. My right hon. Friend is not obliged to accept these recommendations, but it must be recognised that the panel, having heard all the arguments and having studied the county at first hand, is well placed to reach a balanced view. It would be unusual for my right hon. Friend to disregard a panel's main recommendations unless there were reason to believe it had misinterpreted Government policy or had seriously misjudged some relevant consideration.
My right hon. Friend gave careful consideration both to the written representations and to the panel's report, but found no reason to disagree with the broad recommendations in the panel's report in respect of Berkshire's replacement structure plan, or with its particular concern that insufficient housing would be provided in the later part of the plan period.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that my right hon. Friend's proposed modifications to the replacement plan are not welcome to himself or his colleagues in Berkshire, or to many of their constituents, including the county council and most of the district councils. The reasons for their concern have again been put forward forcefully in this debate, but my hon. Friend will know that under the statutory process for dealing with structure plan proposals my right hon. Friend's proposed modifications will be advertised by Berkshire county council and a period of six weeks will be given in which objections and representations can be made to my right hon. Friend. This debate cannot be a substitute for that process, and I shall look forward to receiving detailed written comments from all those who have relevant points to make.
A number of points about the proposed modifications have been made by my hon. Friends. I cannot at this stage deal specifically with the comments made tonight since before my decision is taken it will be necessary to consider all the representations made during the objection period. These may include, of course, some which may suggest that the proposed modifications to increase the housing provision do not go far enough. My hon. Friend will understand that I have to show a proper reticence and will, I hope, forgive me if I do not appear to respond to his points. I can, however, assure him that very careful consideration will be given to all the objections and representations received before my right hon. Friend makes his final decision.
My hon. Friends will have seen the panel's report and the statement of reasons explaining the proposed modifications. It may be helpful if I make a few comments. A number of key points were made by the panel which are central to the panel's recommendations, and which my right hon. Friend has agreed and accepted.
First, the panel concluded that past high rates of house building should not continue.
Secondly, because of the high level of existing commitments to development, the major part of the housing proposed by the county council will be built before 1990. The county council saw this as leading to a very low rate of house building of only about 1,600 dwellings a year in the 1990s. However, the panel considered this level of housing to be too low to meet the needs of the naturally increasing population in Berkshire


in the later part of the plan period even if the county were to cease to cater for in-migration of population from other areas. It pointed to problems that this might give rise to, such as increased pressures on existing housing, with high occupancy rates, suppression of household formation and more difficulty in securing housing for those at the bottom of the market.
Thirdly, the panel did not see the extra provision it recommended as requiring any breach of fundamental planning or other constraints. Fourthly, the panel did not consider the implications of the extra housing for traffic and other infrastructure and service provision were such as to rule out the increase. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend found no reason to disregard the panel's conclusions on those key points.
Notwithstanding the disappointment that my hon. Friends in Berkshire feel, they will recognise that my right hon. Friend's proposed modifications will result in a substantial reduction in house building rates, by about 2,000 dwellings a year from present levels in the county. Past and current high rates of house building in Berkshire are a result of the major growth area status given to central Berkshire in 1970, the strategic plan for the south-east, and reflected in the central Berkshire structure plan. Indeed, much of the housing proposed in the replacement plan is as a result of commitments to development under past policies.
Following my right hon. Friend's statement in June 1986, setting his new regional strategic guidance for the south-east, there is now no policy requirement to encourage major growth in Berkshire. For that reason, and having regard to the arguments put forward by the county council and by my hon. Friends, he has not proposed to accept the argument put forward by developers at the examination in public that a high rate of growth should continue. But nor does the regional guidance suggest that Berkshire should become an area of restraint of growth. In fact, growth is already severely restrained in much of Berkshire because of the extent of the area of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt.
On the matter of planning appeals, may I assure my hon. Friends that all appeals will be considered on their merits in the light of the structure plan and local plan policies. Once the replacement plan is approved, there will be a firm policy base for planning decisions.
It is frequently argued that development should be directed instead to the inner cities and less advantaged areas. I appreciate my hon. Friends' concern. I do not agree that allowing development in Berkshire is depriving those areas. We take the view that it is not the ready availability of sites in the south-east that keeps development out of the inner cities and other less-advantaged areas. Developers would no doubt tell us that the planning policies generally applied over the south-east make it difficult rather than easy to locate or expand there. No, the challenge is to make the inner cities and other areas places where people and industry want to live and work. The Government's promotion of their inner-cities policies is seen not as an alternative to growth in the southeast, but as an objective that needs to be pursued on its own merits. In our view, investment in places such as Berkshire is a separate strand of economic activity and provides a stimulus to the national economy that benefits the whole country, including the inner cities.
There can be no doubting the Government's determination to revitalise the inner cities. Since 1979 more than £3·7 billion has been committed to that work through my Department's urban group programmes alone. A comprehensive range of initiatives has been developed. We shall continue to build and improve upon those. In particular, we are making sure that the work of different Government Departments is co-ordinated and targeted effectively both at national level and, through the city action team, at local level. The Prime Minister has recently appointed my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to advise her on the co-ordination of action and its presentation.
However, the potential for development in the inner cities, as well as through the creation of simplified planning zones and through the use of urban land and the re-use of derelict land, will not meet all the housing and other development needs of the existing population of counties in the south-east. My hon. Friends and hon. Members will know that new, 1985-based sub-national population projections, published in an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitor on 19 January this year, show that there is continuing growth of population in the south-east. On the basis of those projections, the population in the south-east is now expected to be nearly 500,000 more than the 1983-based projections suggested. It is important to note that the major component of that continuing population increase comes from natural change rather than migration into the region. That reinforces the concern felt by the panel about the adequacy of the county council's proposed housing provision in the 1990s.
When we last debated the issue of development in Berkshire, in July 1987, I said that the way to resolve the planning problems in Berkshire was to complete the revision of the structure plan. The proposed modifications are a major step in that process. They reflect the panel's careful assessment that, while building rates should come down, more housing is needed than the county council was prepared to allow, and that the extra development can be accommodated in the county without serious problems. I reject entirely the view that the Government have abandoned their concern for the countryside. It has to be remembered that in Berkshire areas of outstanding natural beauty or of green belt account for almost 60 per cent. of the land area of the county, and I stress again that those areas are not at risk from the proposed modifications.
The planning geography of Berkshire, therefore, will lead future growth to be concentrated in those areas that are not specially protected, provided those areas can accommodate development without, as the panel put it, breaching fundamental planning constraints. I stress that the proposed modifications do not remove any of the county council's policies for the protection of the environment. Landscape and amenity considerations will remain an important factor in determining planning applications.
Now we must wait to receive the comments on the proposed modifications. I have noted all the points made tonight by my hon. Friends, and all those points and all representations we receive will be very carefully considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.